Full Frame Aesthetic?

[gatopardo]

10 hours ago, bunk said:

In Cinema 4D I set up 2 cams. A FullFrame Camera driving a Crop camera. I used releas 13 which is from around 2010, way before the whole Northrup discussion

The Xpresso above is based on Crop x Focal Lenght, Crop x Aperture and (crop)squared x Iso.

Resulting in for instance the properties below.

Three different points of view. 2 x a 50mm f1.4 and 1x 105 mm f2.8 lens in FF

 

You can check them in Photoshop, or better render them out yourself (file attached, Download the demo) but I'm pretty sure they are to the pixel precise.

Let me know how to contact you so I can give you my Paypal info.

CinemaFile.zip

Same findings here in VrayCam in 3DsMax. In real world images would always be somewhat different because we can't use the same lens in both bodies. So, the differences will be on the same level as the ones comparing a Canon 50mm 1.4 to the Nikon 50mm 1.4 one. It's each lens distortions and character making the difference rather than equivalence. But this is important because we may not be able to find a specific character of a full frame lens on a "equivalent" crop sensor lens.

[tweak]

@gatopardo and others - You're totally negating the sensor/ lens difference in all of this though, so what's the point of these tests? It's like saying "in a perfect environment" in scientific test, when no environment is ever perfect or exact...

 

5 hours ago, noone said:

Maybe not as many shooting a 50 2.8 lens on FF but many of those using a faster lens will stop it down to 2.8 (or f4 or even 5.6)  in many cases.    I like using my 55mm lens at f4 or 5.6 for portraits often enough.

As for the other way around, if you stop down enough FF, you will reach infinity a lot sooner than many think.

Lenses 50mm and under wont generally have diffraction issues before reaching infinity very often and lenses around 24mm and shorter would likely almost never.    Someone might have  diffraction issue with 50mm shooting very close in wanting infinity DOF but I haven't seen where that would happen yet.      

Yes, people stop down often on a 50 or other lens on FF because they want sharpness, but since they still have FF they still have that shallow DOF once stopped down... How are you going to replicate that on a M4/3 sensor? You can't.

I tend to disagree with you on the diffraction/ loss of sharpness thing, but that's ok because you've also looked past that by stopping the lens down that far on FF you now also have very poor low light handling. On a smaller sensor you can keep the lens open and still have that deeper DOF with better low light I feel.

[DPC]

23 minutes ago, tweak said:

Yes, people stop down often on a 50 or other lens on FF because they want sharpness, but since they still have FF they still have that shallow DOF once stopped down... How are you going to replicate that on a M4/3 sensor? You can't.

Of course you can. For MFT compared with full frame you need half the focal length and to open up two more stops. 

[gatopardo]

21 minutes ago, tweak said:

@gatopardo and others - You're totally negating the sensor/ lens difference in all of this though, so what's the point of these tests? It's like saying "in a perfect environment" in scientific test, when no environment is ever perfect or exact...

Yes, but you will have the same problem when comparing two different full frame bodies with two different lens having same focal length and aperture. They are theoretically equivalent, but the look will be different because of the particularities of each manufacturer lens for the same focal length and aperture. 

[tweak]

38 minutes ago, DPC said:

Of course you can. For MFT compared with full frame you need half the focal length and to open up two more stops. 

You're totally missing my point... by opening up 2 more stops your lens isn't even close to the IQ of the same setup on FF. I'm not talking about FOV or aperture size.

37 minutes ago, gatopardo said:

Yes, but you will have the same problem when comparing two different full frame bodies with two different lens having same focal length and aperture. They are theoretically equivalent, but the look will be different because of the particularities of each manufacturer lens for the same focal length and aperture. 

Yes, and? That doesn't make it any less of a real thing, which is what this topic was about, real cameras not perfect scenario CGI tests.

[bunk]

I remember Northrup being ridiculed here on this forum. JCS was the  one who came to his “defense” and made the article he linked to in his post one page back. It’s simple math, it’s how things work.
It’s not a coincident that Houdini, Max, Maya, SoftImage, Modo, Lightwave, Blender, you name them all will give the same outcome when you set up a camera test. They all use the same math from the beginning of 3D time.
Hollywood uses it to produces blockbusters. The test I made was completely clean but you can add distortion to mimic specific lenses and maybe even sensors (wouldn’t surprise me).
I’m not a lens specialist but I don’t think a 25mm F0.7 exists in the real world, yet I used it in the example above. But that is not the issue here.

The question was what are the full frame aesthetics compared to the others. And they answer should be the technical limitations we have to deal with in every day live. But those will be solved and when that happens, the answer is none.

Then the believers will start to point out the differences in characteristics of lenses and or sensors but like Gatopardo said they are there between FF lenses and sensors as well …and since there will be more computer generated lenses within time than vintage lenses, those differences will fade as they will all give the same dull characteristics and you won't be able to tell what camera or lens was used ...and I'm talking about consumer cameras as this is a consumer forum.

[tweak]

46 minutes ago, bunk said:

I’m not a lens specialist but I don’t think a 25mm F0.7 exists in the real world, yet I used it in the example above. But that is not the issue here.

The question was what are the full frame aesthetics compared to the others. And they answer should be the technical limitations we have to deal with in every day live. But those will be solved and when that happens, the answer is none.

"When that happens the answer will be none", which means right now there's a difference. 

Lets not beat around the bush here, if there was no difference in FF or larger sensors Vs smaller ones then we would all be using S16 sensors or smaller and reaping the benefits of a more compact system. The truth is though, there is a difference in Aesthetics and even though all your CGIs don't prove it be so, it exists and it's known and telling people there's no difference at this point is just misleading.

Yes in time it could be that larger sensors hold no more value as sensor technology advances, but I'd also argue that as the technology improves to make better smaller sensors the technology will also progress to make better larger sensors... only time will tell us the outcome, everything else is just speculation, we live in the present.

[bunk]

2 hours ago, tweak said:

The truth is though, there is a difference in Aesthetics and even though all your CGIs don't prove it be so, it exists and it's known and telling people there's no difference at this point is just misleading.

Why don't you go over to the site of JCS.
http://brightland.com/w/the-full-frame-look-is-a-myth-heres-how-to-prove-it-for-yourself/
He used the A7S and a zoomlens to produce a fullframe shot and a APS-C shot.
So no difference in sensor and no difference in lens.
I'm looking forward to the difference in aesthetics you are going to point out from that one example. A real world example.

[mercer]

Yeah, the only real world example I saw was from @Mattias Burling and even though I have never shot with a FF camera, I know it would be very difficult to replicate that photo with a smaller sensor, under the same circumstances. I've even noticed it between m4/3 and aps-c... With the lenses I own. And right now, for me... That was more relevant. But I appreciate the answers, I've learned a little bit. 

[tweak]

2 minutes ago, bunk said:

Why don't you go over to the site of JCS.
http://brightland.com/w/the-full-frame-look-is-a-myth-heres-how-to-prove-it-for-yourself/
He used the A7S and a zoomlens to produce a fullframe shot and a APS-C shot.
So no difference in sensor and no difference in lens.
I'm looking forward to the difference in aesthetics you are going to point out from that one example. A real world example.

I'm starting to assume you are just trolling at this point...

"So no difference in sensor and no difference in lens."... that is exactly the difference I'm talking about between cams that these tests are negating  .

Either way I don't really care, I just find this interesting. I shoot with whatever I can afford and does the job to a satisfactory degree. Have fun with your Iphones and 4mm lenses everyone, FF is dead, APS-C is dead, M4/3 is dead, S16 is dead  .

[noone]

4 hours ago, tweak said:

@gatopardo and others - You're totally negating the sensor/ lens difference in all of this though, so what's the point of these tests? It's like saying "in a perfect environment" in scientific test, when no environment is ever perfect or exact...

 

Yes, people stop down often on a 50 or other lens on FF because they want sharpness, but since they still have FF they still have that shallow DOF once stopped down... How are you going to replicate that on a M4/3 sensor? You can't.

I tend to disagree with you on the diffraction/ loss of sharpness thing, but that's ok because you've also looked past that by stopping the lens down that far on FF you now also have very poor low light handling. On a smaller sensor you can keep the lens open and still have that deeper DOF with better low light I feel.

All I can say is I have never had any issue with DOF with FF or M4/3 since using them together.    I have never had to stop down a lens to the point of diffraction limiting me.

I am sure there may well be occasions when that happens, just not for me yet.

I have also been quite happy to use my A7s at f8 at night at higher ISOs.

17mm lens I use for shooting live bands from next to the stage has infinite DOF from only a couple of feet with a subject at 5 feet for instance and even at f4 it is pretty close to having enough DOF much of the time (I may just have to shift the point of focus a little).      

50mm and up and I am not that often wanting infinite DOF, I want "enough" DOF.

Fast lenses are nice (I have FF 24 1.4, 85 1.2, 100 f2, 300 2.8 and have had a couple of 50 1.2 for instance amongst others) and have their place but are not used wide open all that much (100 f2 maybe more than the others).     Many of them I use on both FF and M4/3.

I also don't stop down my Sony Zeiss 55 for sharpness, I stop it down for DOF (it is more than sharp enough wide open though I tend to use f2 or 2.2 a lot more).

I use FF and M4/3 because they are different.      Each has a place for me     If someone wants to shoot with both FF and M4/3 together for a movie, then you could match them by calculating DOF/F stops/ETC unless it was outside what is available but it may well take some work to do. 

[tweak]

1 minute ago, noone said:

I use FF and M4/3 because they are different.      Each has a place for me

All you needed to say and I agree, even if CGI tests do not. 

[hyalinejim]

On 29/10/2016 at 8:06 AM, 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?

@mercer

The answer to the first question is: those are the most significant differences, as well as the fact that larger sensors generally have less noise.

The answer to the second question is: if the focal lengths and apertures are equivalent then the field of view and depth of field will match and the aps-c will not stand out. But the lens that will match the desired focal length and depth of field may not exist for aps-c or it may be more expensive than you'd like.

The take home message is: Use the laws of equivalence to decide if a given format's lens selection will meet your desires and budget for:

1. Angle of view - how wide or how telephoto you need to go
2. Depth of field - how little or much of the image do you want to be in focus
3. Light gathering ability - your preferences for depth of field in a given lighting situation with regard to the sensor's noise performance

This will allow you to choose the best format for you, or to match one format to another within the limits of available hardware.

[gatopardo]

Never said they are the same. But equivalence is possible and many times quite accurate.

Here are the differences:

- There are no equivalent lens yet for some full frame lens like a Canon 50mm 1.2 or some fast  wide angles.

- Equivalent lens for crop sensor are quite expensive and heavy, lots of glass... see last olympus 25mm 1.2 as an example

- The render of the  equivalent lens will be different but only because of each lens character. This difference type is the same as between Canon and Nikon 50mm 1.4 full frame lens 

- The exposure is different, as for the same position of shooting, angle of view, and DOF, the crop sensor lens has normally more transmission of light. But, as T-stop is different of F-stop, even for a joke, a lens could be done with same transmission for half the aperture (that would be stupid though).

- The diffraction point is different but for the same DOF is the same so, use a ND when needed on crop sensors ( this is really a rare situation )

 

 

[dhessel]

This topic again. There is no full frame asthetic. If you take a bunch of cameras all shot with different sensor sizes shot with equivalance to one another they will all look almost exactly the same. The only difference will be the usual sensor and lens characteristics that will give each one its own look. Larger sensors can have a shallower depth of field since it would require super fast lenses to achieve equivalance to a fast full frame or larger format camera but where equivalances can be made they will look nearly identical. The reverse is also true for deep depth of field. If you like the "full frame look" you just like shallow depth of field.

Follow this link, in these shots which one is the full frame and which one is the crop sensor?

http://brightland.com/w/the-full-frame-look-is-a-myth-heres-how-to-prove-it-for-yourself/

[DPC]

4 hours ago, tweak said:

You're totally missing my point... by opening up 2 more stops your lens isn't even close to the IQ of the same setup on FF. I'm not talking about FOV or aperture size.

I'm afraid you've lost me. How do you define IQ?

Anyway, after reading all this what really comes to mind is that if what you shoot is interesting enough, nobody gives a damn what you shot it on.

And if the first thing viewers think is "oh what a lovely full-frame look", you're probably doing something wrong.

Oh, and to avoid confusion, "you"here includes me.

 

[tweak]

"There's no FF aesthetic, but here's the differences... but if you can make equivalences there's no differences"... hahaha.
 

[fuzzynormal]

blah blah blah blah blah.  If you're truly worrying about this kind of stuff, chances are you're not really MAKING anything worthwhile with any of it.

[tweak]

2 minutes ago, DPC said:

I'm afraid you've lost me. How do you define IQ?

Image Quality - an image of a decent known standard of quality, as close as you can get to professional cinema applications.

By having to have your small sensor lens wide open at 0.9 whilst the FF lens is stopped down 2 stops you're never going to have the same level of IQ. Fact.

[Davey]

This is going to run for thousands of posts. All I know is that the first time I took a picture with the a7sii and 55 f1.8 it blew the fz200 I'd been using for the previous two years clean out of the water.

That's all that mattered.