Large Format Cameras Are Changing Film Language, From ‘Joker’ to ‘Midsommar’

[kye]

My brain didn't un-melt yesterday, so didn't shoot any pics, however I did remember that I shot some comparison pics between the two setups previously:

I remember I did have to move the camera between shots as the two lenses weren't exactly the same FOV, however just for discussion these two are an example of a 40mm and a 55mm+SB.

I'm not seeing any differences to write home about, but maybe this isn't a good enough test.

I would also encourage everyone to stop talking about perspective.  

Perspective isn't relevant unless you want to go wide with a shallow DoF.  If you do want to go wider than what you can do with the 10mm f0.95 Voigtlander MFT lens, or the Sigma 14mm F1.8 + 0.64x SB combo on S35, or the Sigma 14mm F1.8 or Sigma 20mm f1.4 on FF, then that's great and good luck to you, but if that is what we're talking about here then the LF look doesn't apply with non-wide shots, or non-crazy-shallow-DoF shots.  There are also a steady stream of f0.95 primes starting to appear for various formats, and at reasonable prices, so the shallow DoF / longer focal lengths combo should have options.  If you are having a problem with the prices then just think about how much an LF camera costs, splash water on your face to recover, then come back to this conversation.

I'm not sure about you guys, but when I first got my Voigtlander 17.5mm f0.95 lens I shot it wide open quite a lot, and what I worked out was that if you shoot it like this the look you get isn't the "high-end large format big budget cinema" look, it's the "there's something wrong with my eyes - help - I can't see properly" look.

So, either the LF look is wide with shallow DoF, and that's fine (and I can ignore it because I don't care) or there is something else going on, in which case, talking about perspective is just confusing everyone and stopping us from figuring out if there is anything else to the large format look.

[fuzzynormal]

2 hours ago, kye said:

the look you get isn't the "high-end large format big budget cinema" look, it's the "there's something wrong with my eyes - help - I can't see properly" look.

You're invited to watch the film (or trailer) my wife and I put together with a GH5 and G85.  95% of the shots were with Voights shooting f.095.  It's a look.  I also just re-bought a used 5dMII for less than $400.  Full Frame and fast lenses for interviews is nice.  Point is, if you want to play, play.  Things are cheap. Have fun.

http://www.flyingfurfilm.com

[Xavier Plagaro Mussard]

Joker is and infomercial on Joaquin Phoenix. The formats are so overrated. Make good films!

[Adam Kuźniar]

7 hours ago, fuzzynormal said:

You're invited to watch the film (or trailer) my wife and I put together with a GH5 and G85.  95% of the shots were with Voights shooting f.095.  It's a look.  I also just re-bought a used 5dMII for less than $400.  Full Frame and fast lenses for interviews is nice.  Point is, if you want to play, play.  Things are cheap. Have fun.

http://www.flyingfurfilm.com

that film looks super interesting man 

[EthanAlexander]

13 hours ago, fuzzynormal said:

You're invited to watch the film (or trailer) my wife and I put together with a GH5 and G85.  95% of the shots were with Voights shooting f.095.  It's a look.  I also just re-bought a used 5dMII for less than $400.  Full Frame and fast lenses for interviews is nice.  Point is, if you want to play, play.  Things are cheap. Have fun.

http://www.flyingfurfilm.com

Prob gonna watch this soon it looks good!

 

[fuzzynormal]

1 hour ago, EthanAlexander said:

Prob gonna watch this soon it looks good!

Thanks.  Hope you like it.  If you like dogs and airplanes, there's pretty good chance you'll enjoy the flick.

[kye]

On 11/6/2019 at 9:48 AM, fuzzynormal said:

You're invited to watch the film (or trailer) my wife and I put together with a GH5 and G85.  95% of the shots were with Voights shooting f.095.  It's a look.  I also just re-bought a used 5dMII for less than $400.  Full Frame and fast lenses for interviews is nice.  Point is, if you want to play, play.  Things are cheap. Have fun.

http://www.flyingfurfilm.com

Just watched the trailer and firstly, great looking film, well done!

In terms of the look of f0.95, yes it completely suits.  It’s funny because I tried it and it made no sense whatsoever in most shots, but then i’m watching your trailer expecting to have the same reaction and it looked completely appropriate.

I think the difference is the subject matter.  I film my family while travelling and so every people shot is really an environmental portrait because they’re about us being in a particular place.  When you’re crafting compositions it’s much more about the subject of the shot, so the relationship between the subject and the surroundings are different, or at least this relationship is portrayed differently through a different approach to compositions.

This is very interesting to me, thanks for the prompt to think about it more  

[fuzzynormal]

10 hours ago, kye said:

Just watched the trailer and firstly, great looking film, well done!

In terms of the look of f0.95, yes it completely suits.  It’s funny because I tried it and it made no sense whatsoever in most shots, but then i’m watching your trailer expecting to have the same reaction and it looked completely appropriate.

I think the difference is the subject matter.  I film my family while travelling and so every people shot is really an environmental portrait because they’re about us being in a particular place.  When you’re crafting compositions it’s much more about the subject of the shot, so the relationship between the subject and the surroundings are different, or at least this relationship is portrayed differently through a different approach to compositions.

This is very interesting to me, thanks for the prompt to think about it more  

To be fair, my wife pointed out how my claim of 95% of our shots is an exaggeration.  She says more like 80%.  But, yeah, the f.095 doesn't create incredibly odd shallow DOF depending how you shoot.  It's more of a style.  If the subject is a few meters away from you vs. if they're close to the lens...that's the main thing that makes a difference to my eye.

After we got our doc in the can we put together a quick teaser for the film.  This teaser video actually features the .095 shots more prominently.  If you're looking for it, I think you can see it.  But otherwise, it sits pretty easy in the edit visually with a mix of other lenses and f-stops.

Ultimately I find the Voights to be perfect M43 lenses as, aside from DOF, they'll allow for some good low light video capture when you need it.  They're not tack sharp wide open, but sharp enough.  Again, it's a look.  I tend to like it and prefer shooting manual lenses, so I'll probably keep using these lenses for awhile.

BTW, I've mentioned this before on EOSHD, but I also have decided to shoot most of my stuff NOT at the 180 rule.  If I'm shooting 24p, then I run the shutter @25.  30p=30ss, etc.  That's adramatic motion blur effect, and it'll really take the edge off the "video" look.  It's not for everyone, but there ya go.

 

[CyclingBen]

@EthanAlexander "It doesn't have to do with the FOV, which you could match with a longer lens from far away, it has to do with perspective, which changes when you get closer. People know, even if only subconsciously, how close the camera is to the subject."

That's a bingo. At least for me it was while reading through this.  You can tell how far away the camera is as an audience member, though not as accurately the further the camera gets from the subject (think ball on the football pitch, you know it's far away, but can't tell exactly how far).  Even though film is a 2D medium, our brains still try to make it seem 3D by recreating the missing information based on our past experiences.  

The examples that came to my mind right away, were those interviews in The Office television show and those talking head YouTube videos.  Your mind can physically sense where the camera placement, and even it's the same FOV/equivalence your mind makes a fairly accurate guess where you (the viewer) is compared to the subject.  It's  our own minds recreating the 3D that should be there based on what we're looking at. I think the magic from large formats comes from the more realistic perspective our brains create. 

I think the magic in large formats comes from the ability to recreate the perspective our brains are used to in the real world for a given situation.  For a conversation between two people across a table, you're generally about 1.5 to 2ft apart. It's almost impossible to have a MFT camera this close to someone in an interview situation and even if the field of view is the same as the large format, our brains know that the large format camera is closer to the subject...

All right brain, back to looking at formulas on a spreadsheet, you've had your fun for the day. Excuse the rambling

[seanzzxx]

I'm 99% certain Steve Yedlin, without mention the article or the author, is talking about this article when he once again has to whip out his explanation of large format fallacies:

http://www.yedlin.net/191106.html

Here's his visual explanation:

http://yedlin.net/lens_blur.html

[CyclingBen]

"However, there are other attributes that could falsely appear to alter the perspective. These occur when the already-2D image is warped or distorted. In other words: when the 3D projection onto a 2D plane remains unchanged but the 2D image is warped. This could give the false sense of a different perspective."

Maybe that's just it, the large format lenses being used are creating "distortion" that make the perspective appear different, even though it should mathematically be the same... hmm.

[EthanAlexander]

Quote

Since the audience can see only the final blur circles and neither the f/stop nor the sensor size, they can't see in the final image if blur circles are increased by a larger format size or by a larger aperture. Those two things are interchangeable in the final image, so this is not a "look" that's discernable in the final image. (It may be easier for the the filmmaker to achieve a certain size blur circle in one format or another but the audience also can't see how easy or difficult it is -- they only see the final image, so again, it's not a "look.”).

5. Compression.
...Compression (in the sense that it's meant by filmmakers) is a combination of camera placement and angle-of-view -- it's just a combo of two other attributes... This is true no matter what the sensor size is. ... AoV and perspective are each properties that are not unique to one format size ... If you use the same perspective (camera position) and same AoV on two different sensor sizes, you'll have the same compression. 

I appreciate the article's timeliness and it's accuracy of reporting on the increased use of larger sensors as an actual market trend, but I hope there are opportunities in future reporting for more rigor in differentiating the fallacies that are being perpetuated from the facts of hard science, because it's a very real phenomenon that demonstrably false beliefs are non-trivially impacting decision making and market trends. Without that clarification, the reporting itself becomes both part of the reinforcing feedback loop that propagates the misunderstanding and an unwitting advertising mouthpieces for the vendors or brands who profit from disinformation (whether or not they are themselves propagating the fallacies).

Thanks for your time.

Best.

-Steve Yedlin, ASC

Mic drop. ?

 

[User]

- I found myself scratching my head on this:

"If you use the same perspective (camera postion) and same AoV on two different sensor sizes, you'll have the same compression. Compression is not an attribute of the sensor size, but a description of how a filmmaker sets up a shot (like: do we back up with a narrower AoV or go closer with a wider one)."

I though compression was something achieved through the use of telephoto lenses, where the foreground and background distance was compressed via lens magnification. Hmmm.

[KnightsFan]

11 minutes ago, User said:

- I found myself scratching my head on this:

"If you use the same perspective (camera postion) and same AoV on two different sensor sizes, you'll have the same compression. Compression is not an attribute of the sensor size, but a description of how a filmmaker sets up a shot (like: do we back up with a narrower AoV or go closer with a wider one)."

I though compression was something achieved through the use of telephoto lenses, where the foreground and background distance was compressed via lens magnification. Hmmm.

That's the common misconception.

The phenomenon of the "foreground and background distance" being "compressed" is due to the location of the camera, and nothing else. It just happens that when we use telephoto lenses, we often back up to get everything in frame, and thus the camera position changes.

A simple thought experiment: is there any lens/camera combination that would make a total solar eclipse look any different? The answer of course is no, because the relative distances between camera (earth), moon, and sun is fixed. The sun and moon will always appear to be the same size in the sky from our perspective on earth.

[User]

 

58 minutes ago, KnightsFan said:

A simple thought experiment: is there any lens/camera combination that would make a total solar eclipse look any different? The answer of course is no, because the relative distances between camera (earth), moon, and sun is fixed. The sun and moon will always appear to be the same size in the sky from our perspective on earth.

Not so fast there cowboy, what if it's a 'supermoon?'

It'll be fun trying to enlighten telephoto lens buffs that 'compression' is what happens when they train any lens on anything. I guess it makes sense somehow... but.

"I compressed some perspective and AoV while on vacation."

[kye]

7 hours ago, fuzzynormal said:

To be fair, my wife pointed out how my claim of 95% of our shots is an exaggeration.  She says more like 80%.  But, yeah, the f.095 doesn't create incredibly odd shallow DOF depending how you shoot.  It's more of a style.  If the subject is a few meters away from you vs. if they're close to the lens...that's the main thing that makes a difference to my eye.

After we got our doc in the can we put together a quick teaser for the film.  This teaser video actually features the .095 shots more prominently.  If you're looking for it, I think you can see it.  But otherwise, it sits pretty easy in the edit visually with a mix of other lenses and f-stops.

Ultimately I find the Voights to be perfect M43 lenses as, aside from DOF, they'll allow for some good low light video capture when you need it.  They're not tack sharp wide open, but sharp enough.  Again, it's a look.  I tend to like it and prefer shooting manual lenses, so I'll probably keep using these lenses for awhile.

BTW, I've mentioned this before on EOSHD, but I also have decided to shoot most of my stuff NOT at the 180 rule.  If I'm shooting 24p, then I run the shutter @25.  30p=30ss, etc.  That's adramatic motion blur effect, and it'll really take the edge off the "video" look.  It's not for everyone, but there ya go.

Absolutely, subject distance dominates DoF, which is why macro is the only way to get bokeh with a phone.

Cool teaser!  The aerial shots are particularly impressive - the shots looking down on the plane were really good.  I'm thinking you had access to a second light plane from the same organisation?  I'm not aware of the performance of the top drones but this seems beyond the reach of those things?  I didn't spot any traces of a limited budget or constraints, so that's well done.

I see the f0.95 a lot more in this cut.  It seemed a little much to me, but that could be because I was looking for it, so who knows - at this point in the conversation any neutral perspective on DoF is completely gone!

I'm absolutely with you on DoF and low-light both being advantages of the Voigtlanders (and other lenses this fast) - it's a look that I don't particularly mind, but can be compensated for.  It's also relatively easy to degrade a shot in post to match this look, so if you want to stop down sometimes but still get a uniform look then that's possible.  Here's a shot from another thread about degrading a modern look to a vintage one.

Original side-by-side:

Matching Samyang to Lomo:

It's not perfect but in an edit it wouldn't be that noticeable, especially as you wouldn't be seeing both at the same time, and also the shot/angle would be different.

Interesting about running a 360 degree shutter.  It makes sense that if you've got some other factors pushing you into the 'video' look that you compensate by 'overdoing it' on another variable to bring the look back into balance for what you want.

6 hours ago, seanzzxx said:

I'm 99% certain Steve Yedlin, without mention the article or the author, is talking about this article when he once again has to whip out his explanation of large format fallacies:

http://www.yedlin.net/191106.html

Here's his visual explanation:

http://yedlin.net/lens_blur.html

Fascinating.

His shots appear to be perfectly matched.

@Nikkor what are you seeing in the images in the second link?  (you have to scroll down a bit). I see subtle differences in the look, but can't tell if they're because the actor is posed differently.  I was anticipating doing a test using a still-life to match the images exactly.

[Nikkor]

18 hours ago, kye said:

Absolutely, subject distance dominates DoF, which is why macro is the only way to get bokeh with a phone.

Cool teaser!  The aerial shots are particularly impressive - the shots looking down on the plane were really good.  I'm thinking you had access to a second light plane from the same organisation?  I'm not aware of the performance of the top drones but this seems beyond the reach of those things?  I didn't spot any traces of a limited budget or constraints, so that's well done.

I see the f0.95 a lot more in this cut.  It seemed a little much to me, but that could be because I was looking for it, so who knows - at this point in the conversation any neutral perspective on DoF is completely gone!

I'm absolutely with you on DoF and low-light both being advantages of the Voigtlanders (and other lenses this fast) - it's a look that I don't particularly mind, but can be compensated for.  It's also relatively easy to degrade a shot in post to match this look, so if you want to stop down sometimes but still get a uniform look then that's possible.  Here's a shot from another thread about degrading a modern look to a vintage one.

Original side-by-side:

Matching Samyang to Lomo:

It's not perfect but in an edit it wouldn't be that noticeable, especially as you wouldn't be seeing both at the same time, and also the shot/angle would be different.

Interesting about running a 360 degree shutter.  It makes sense that if you've got some other factors pushing you into the 'video' look that you compensate by 'overdoing it' on another variable to bring the look back into balance for what you want.

Fascinating.

His shots appear to be perfectly matched.

@Nikkor what are you seeing in the images in the second link?  (you have to scroll down a bit). I see subtle differences in the look, but can't tell if they're because the actor is posed differently.  I was anticipating doing a test using a still-life to match the images exactly.

He is doing the wrong Math. Can't judge the Images from my small phone, but if he is not lying (a posibility you should always contemplate) then you should see the difference in his Images.

 

[Mokara]

On 11/2/2019 at 5:55 PM, kye said:

I found that article to be very confusing.  We all know that different crop factors can be compensated for in some ways (eg, FOV) but that other things don’t scale (eg exposure) so for example on MFT you put on a lens that’s 25mm T2.8 and get a certain exposure and a certain DoF, but when you put a 50mm onto a FF lens then you can set the lens to be T5.6 and get less exposure but the same DoF, or you can set it to T2.8 and get the same exposure but a shallower DoF.

Tha article seems to be indicating that something changes when you use the larger sensor and then put on a lens to give the same FOV, but it doesn’t say what it is.  It seemed to indicate that you can get closer and still see the same things on the edges of the frame, but that would mean a wider FOV, which is something you can do with any sensor size - just go wider and closer.

Does anyone actually know what they’re talking about?

When someone says that X is somehow "special", but can't say exactly what it is, that is a sure sign of BS

[fuzzynormal]

I'm a big fan of M43.

However, in my experience, larger sensors shoot sharper images at similar DOF's effects. That's pretty much it as far ascent I'm concerned.

Yes, you can shoot, approx. f2 FF equivilant on a M43 with a f0.95 lens, but the lens costs $600+ and it's soft'ish wide open and also has some halo'ing.  I kinda like that look, but that's me.  

A f2 lens on a FF camera can be had for $25 and will be pretty sharp. 

Shoot the visuals you like. 

If you find M43 coming up short, consider other options. Ain't no big deal. 

[EthanAlexander]

3 hours ago, fuzzynormal said:

I'm a big fan of M43.

However, in my experience, larger sensors shoot sharper images at similar DOF's effects. That's pretty much it as far ascent I'm concerned.

Yes, you can shoot, approx. f2 FF equivilant on a M43 with a f0.95 lens, but the lens costs $600+ and it's soft'ish wide open and also has some halo'ing.  I kinda like that look, but that's me.  

A f2 lens on a FF camera can be had for $25 and will be pretty sharp. 

Shoot the visuals you like. 

If you find M43 coming up short, consider other options. Ain't no big deal. 

To be fair, almost any lens wide open is soft, but I get your point.

On the flip side, it's great when you need a lot of extra light - you can open up to 0.95 and still be getting the depth of field of a 1.8 so you're getting a bunch of light and at least a chance of getting things in focus at the same time ?