35mm film vs 35mm full frame...confused

[markm]

Sean You are clearly misinterpreting my words. I replied to Andy's post which read
------------------------------------------
I agree with Axel 50mm Full Frame and above is used in most films these days as a standard.

----------------------------------------
Now.. Read what he put Full frame is used in most films. It is not full frame but super 35.

Terminolgy is often thrown around with no regard to STANDARDS.

I suggest Sean that you make sure YOU understand what is being said.

You said
Unsqueezed, I'm assuming you're meaning. Width wise it actually represents an even larger image area than the 5D's 135 format sized sensor, clocking in at 42mm x 17.5mm for modern 2X anamorphic photography, 42.6mm x 17.8mm for films between 1970 and 1993 and 42.6mm x 18.2mm for anamorphic films prior to this.
----------------------------------
Even this statement is a bit condescending to the poster. Obviously Anamorphic is printed as 4 perf on Super 35mm so of course he is meaning unsqueezed. The rest of the statement is okay but why the rudeness and superior attitude?

Between you and Andy its kind of bad form and lack of knowledge coupled with aggression and don't question me I am superior. Funny I had hopes we could have collaborated on something in the future right up to the point you called me a troll.

[andy lee]

just read it carefully its quite clear what I was talking about everyone else undestands it!!

[markm]

just read it carefully its quite clear what I was talking about everyone else undestands it!!

So full frame is used in most films these days as a standard? Course not There was no need for all this All you had to do was acknowledge the error and move on. But no It has to be followed by wishy washy posts insults and name calling. You want to be professional then learn to take on board what is right and do so in the vein it was meant. With a good attitude and willingness to learn.

[andy lee]

Mark just read it I didnt say full frame was used ....Axel was refering to 50mm full frame EQUIVILANT and so was I and Burnet too

its simple to understand

 

Roger Deakins uses a 32mm lens - THATS THE EQUIVILANT of 50mm Full frame - its quite clearly said multiple times by all of us

just read it carefully

 

 

ok here we go again...... it clearly says   'that is approx 50mm  on a Full Frame Camera,'  the last sentence OK

 

I agree with Axel 50mm Full Frame and above is used in most films these days as a standard.

DOPs like Roger Deakins tend to use a 32mm lens on the Alexa alot of the time , a large part of SKYFALL is shot on a 32mm lens

that is approx 50mm  on a Full Frame Camera,

[Axel]

All the confusion comes from the crop factor terminology, which only makes sense if you take a lens calculated for a different sensor size. And even there, focal length stays focal length. The only siginficant and not relative number that changes is the FOV angle. 50mm fullframe seem to equal 46,8° (for 3:2! - source: Wikipedia). Somewhere on blackmagicuser.net there is a large table, where someone has applied the formula to a bunch of lenses popular for the BMCC. Perhaps we should learn to estimate this to avoid misunderstanding.

 

First, you misread Andy's post regarding the photography of Skyfall.  Andy was agreeing with Axl's erroneous theory that there's a preference and/or standardization in motion picture photography on an FOV equivalency to a 50mm lens shot on a "full frame" camera.

 

You got me wrong. Everywhere you read people are desperate to find a lens with a FOV > 80°, without which they consider themselves under-equipped. I just said everything over 70° is suitable for an action cam and really is not very sensible for narrative filmmaking (exceptions prove the rule).

 

Sure enough: My favourite director, Stanley Kubrick, used extreme wide angles very often. For two reasons:

1. He liked to show the actors from head to feet. 

2. He actually liked the distortion of perspective, when he moved the camera (I think he cited Welles).

 

If there was a standardization in 'the industry', I wouldn't care. 

[andy lee]

my favourite lens I use on all jobs is a 50mm Full Frame Equivilant lens

 

so the Canon 5d it is 50mm

on my apsc 550d it is 35mm (as I dont have a 32mm lens like Roger Deakins!)

on my micro 4/3 Panansonic G6 its 25mm

 

I find it gets used everytime as the main starting point for planning shots and the main master take I do first of each scene.

[markm]

Mark just read it I didnt say full frame was used ....Axel was refering to 50mm full frame EQUIVILANT and so was I and Burnet too
its simple to understand
 
Roger Deakins uses a 32mm lens - THATS THE EQUIVILANT of 50mm Full frame - its quite clearly said multiple times by all of us
just read it carefully
 
 
ok here we go again...... it clearly says   'that is approx 50mm  on a Full Frame Camera,'  the last sentence OK
 
I agree with Axel 50mm Full Frame and above is used in most films these days as a standard.
DOPs like Roger Deakins tend to use a 32mm lens on the Alexa alot of the time , a large part of SKYFALL is shot on a 32mm lens
that is approx 50mm  on a Full Frame Camera,

Okay So if that is what you meant you should have put equivalent

IE You said
I agree with Axel 50mm Full Frame and above is used in most films these days as a standard.

What you should have said is
I agree with Axel 50mm Full Frame equivalent and above is used in most films these days as a standard.

Your sentence actually implies full frame is used in most films these days. Whatever way you look at it you were not clear in your meaning. I'd also take issue that 32mm lenses are used as a standard in film making anyway. You may be right that 50mm is closest to human vision but very wrong to think Directors want that look. Maybe you're looking at Roger Deakins to hard and losing sight of everyone else?

[Axel]

;)

@ markm

You deliberately confuse everything. If you were told, 'use a 50mm' and you said you put it in front of a MFT sensor and wondered why the heck you needed to cross the street every time you just tried to frame a normal CU, I don't believe you. 

[andy lee]

that is approx 50mm  on a Full Frame Camera,   it quite clearly states that ...read the whole sentence instead of just the first line Mark.....

everyone else undersands that

 

this is getting boring now

[markm]

;)
@ markm
You deliberately confuse everything. If you were told, 'use a 50mm' and you said you put it in front of a MFT sensor and wondered why the heck you needed to cross the street every time you just tried to frame a normal CU, I don't believe you.

Thanks Axel for adding to this crap..

 

this is getting boring now

 

 

When you are wrong you should have the balls to admit it even if it was an error in syntax.

[markm]

my favourite lens I use on all jobs is a 50mm Full Frame Equivilant lens
 
so the Canon 5d it is 50mm
on my apsc 550d it is 35mm (as I dont have a 32mm lens like Roger Deakins!)
on my micro 4/3 Panansonic G6 its 25mm
 
I find it gets used everytime as the main starting point for planning shots and the main master take I do first of each scene.

The main master take?
What the hell is that when its at home? Are you saying you shoot your masters with a C/U lens?

Okay I'm now getting confused by the way you write I initially thought you meant one 50mm lens doubles as the rest. Maybe its just me But I have a lot of trouble understanding you. In future I will skip your posts.

[andy lee]

everyone else understand its very simple Mark.

 

you have to use a different lens for each sensor size to get the same field of view

in this case 50mm Full frame we where talking about how to get that same field of view with different sensors and lenses

 

its just simple Maths that's all. 

 

I do give up .......good bye

[markm]

Super 35mm Use

 

85mm is a portrait lens

50mm is a C/U

35mm is still a C/U

21mm is a wide

 

Super 16mm Use

50mm Portrait lens

25mm C/U

18mm still a LCU

12mm is wide

9.5mm is wide

 

You can work the rest out approx.

 

If you start adding crop factors it creates confusion as crop factors can be applied to any sensor size as a starting point.

 

A 32mm lens is not a wide angle on a Super 35mm frame Its somewhere in between.

[Axel]

Now we agree. Let's move on.

[Sean Cunningham]

Now we agree. Let's move on.

 

 

I'm sorry, I wish I could but some things still need addressing because I'm not fully convinced...

 

 

Sean You are clearly misinterpreting my words. I replied to Andy's post which read
------------------------------------------
I agree with Axel 50mm Full Frame and above is used in most films these days as a standard.

----------------------------------------
Now.. Read what he put Full frame is used in most films. It is not full frame but super 35.

 

 

If that was the only thing that he'd written, if that was a paragraph on its own or a single line reply you would be correct.  But you're cherry picking and/or fixating on one line without placing it into the context of the paragraph it's in.  You're going to continue to confuse yourself if you don't take context for the entire thought into account before trying to be a grammar nazi and throw discussions needlessly off track.

 

 

 

Terminolgy is often thrown around with no regard to STANDARDS.

 

 

 

Here we can agree and you shouldn't throw stones since you've done it yourself in this thread.

 

 

 

You said

Unsqueezed, I'm assuming you're meaning. Width wise it actually represents an even larger image area than the 5D's 135 format sized sensor, clocking in at 42mm x 17.5mm for modern 2X anamorphic photography, 42.6mm x 17.8mm for films between 1970 and 1993 and 42.6mm x 18.2mm for anamorphic films prior to this.

----------------------------------

Even this statement is a bit condescending to the poster. Obviously Anamorphic is printed as 4 perf on Super 35mm so of course he is meaning unsqueezed. The rest of the statement is okay but why the rudeness and superior attitude?

 

 

 

Um, no, you're wrong again.  Anamorphic is not printed on Super 35mm or a Super 35mm format.  In fact it can be considered the antithesis to Super 35mm.   Also, anamorphic would never be "printed" on Super 35mm but films shot Super 35mm were routinely printed to anamorphic release prints.

 

Both Super 35 and anamorphic 35mm are 4-perf 35mm formats.   Super 35mm is full silent aperture and spherical and an acquisition format.  Anamorphic 35mm is both an acquisition and release format.  In the case of what I was responding to my tone might have been a response to the mentioning of "perfs" which is an irrelevant component to FOV given the context of "anamorphic".  By this time all hope for clarity for the OP had virtually been lost and the thread was a complete mess.

 

Before you can champion standards and precise thinking you need to also be correct in your precise use of standards.  

 

Between you and Andy its kind of bad form and lack of knowledge coupled with aggression and don't question me I am superior. Funny I had hopes we could have collaborated on something in the future right up to the point you called me a troll.

 

 

Seriously, dude.  I welcome anyone to point out when I'm wrong about anything.  You're the one going on about "standards" and misuse and have been the most un-knowledgeable poster here.  I would also like to point out that I'm likely in the 1% of this board that's actually worked extensively with 35mm material and in the context of my work I have to be precise.  It's why I absolutely loathe the whole concept of "crop factor", because I consider them imprecise bullshit and often completely irrelevant when introduced into a motion picture conversation.

 

I was paying you a compliment by originally not wanting to believe you were this wrong here, hence the "troll" comment.  I fully admit aggression though.  I'll own that.  You better be capable of bringing it if you want to dispute or argue something with me.  You better be able to actually argue, not simply state an opinion.  I don't respect opinion I respect argument.  If I'm wrong about something, I'm wrong and I'm not too proud to admit it.  But you had better be able to prove it and back it up.  

 

Put me on ignore if you like.

[Sean Cunningham]

 

You got me wrong. Everywhere you read people are desperate to find a lens with a FOV > 80°, without which they consider themselves under-equipped. I just said everything over 70° is suitable for an action cam and really is not very sensible for narrative filmmaking (exceptions prove the rule).

 

Sure enough: My favourite director, Stanley Kubrick, used extreme wide angles very often. For two reasons:

1. He liked to show the actors from head to feet. 

2. He actually liked the distortion of perspective, when he moved the camera (I think he cited Welles).

 

If there was a standardization in 'the industry', I wouldn't care. 

 

But I don't find Kubrick to be an exception and you haven't offered any supporting evidence to your claim that he is one.  Take, for instance, Fincher.  He doesn't frame like Kubrick or cover action like Kubrick and there isn't a lot of overly distorted perspective in his films yet he gravitates to sub-30mm lenses for films that are not action films, all narrative.  Then there's the loads of anamorphic films which are not mostly covered 50mm+ 

 

Distortion is not a given based on focal length.  It is not a uniform expectation.  It is also effected by aspect ratio.  In the context of Kubrick, his films were mostly shot in non-widescreen or the very conservative varieties that were still quite tall.  A given lens's sense of distortion is incredibly enhanced by seeing so much headroom and legroom.  Take the same lens package, put it into the hands of another filmmaker who masks to a truly wide widescreen and you will end up with a different sense of distortion.  It wasn't just the lenses he chose it was how he chose to use them.

 

So if Kubrick is an exception and Fincher is an exception, David O Russel is an exception, P.T. Anderson is an exception, Wes Anderson is an exception, John McTiernan is an exception, Edgar Wright is an exception, John Carpenter is an exception, Quentin Tarantino is an exeption, Terence Malick is an exception, Brian DePalma is an exception...I hope you see where I'm going.  Exceptional directors, those known for bold, cinematic style, seem to be the exception here.  I'm okay with that.  I have no intention of using un-exceptional visual storytelling as any sort of guide.

 

You have your Tony Scotts,  Michael Manns and Peter Bergs who swing the exact opposite way and shoot everything with telephoto lenses from across the room and down the block but more often than not when I go to investigate the cinematography of a film I want to know more about it proves to be mostly shot on wider than middle-of-the-road focal lengths.  I've got most of the references to back that up, going back to 2007 at my fingertips (with access to some material going back to 1997 online), since my older ACMs are in storage right now.

 

Putting that into words, however, and thinking about it, sitting here,  I will admit that my chosen sampling of filmmakers constitutes a statistical problem.  My investigations of films, filmmakers and DPs reinforces my position.  It's rare that I'll take the time to look into how a film that didn't grab me, visually, was made and there are an awful lot more of those than the work of the directors and DPs that I typically find exceptional and visually engaging.  

 

So, yeah, I could be totally wrong about the effective mode FOV looking at a larger sampling of production.  I likely am wrong in this case (see Mark).  Somehow I'm not feeling too bad about it though  ;)

[markm]

that was the only thing that he'd written, if that was a paragraph on its own or a single line reply you would be correct. But you're cherry picking and/or fixating on one line without placing it into the context of the paragraph it's in. You're going to continue to confuse yourself if you don't take context for the entire thought into account before trying to be a grammar nazi and throw discussions needlessly off track.

 

The line actually implied full screen was used for films Now that's what I read and I simply tried to correct that but in any event the comment was aimed at Andy not you.

So to avoid confusion lets look at it in context. Andy wrote


I agree with Axel 50mm Full Frame and above is used in most films these days as a standard.

DOPs like Roger Deakins tend to use a 32mm lens on the Alexa alot of the time , a large part of SKYFALL is shot on a 32mm lens

that is approx 50mm on a Full Frame Camera,


We have discussed the first paragraph The second paragraph says deakins shot on a 32mm lens The next paragraph which is actually a continuation and really a sentence states a 32mm lens is aprox 50mm on a full size sensor. In fact the whole thing makes no sense Although after reading the follows ups I can now see what it is Andy was trying to say but no understanding as to why I would read the bloody thing as it was written Just that I must be somehow being anal for not second guessing this.


 

Here we can agree and you shouldn't throw stones since you've done it yourself in this thread.

 

Fine So where?

 

Um, no, you're wrong again. Anamorphic is not printed on Super 35mm or a Super 35mm format. In fact it can be considered the antithesis to Super 35mm. Also, anamorphic would never be "printed" on Super 35mm but films shot Super 35mm were routinely printed to anamorphic release prints.

 

You're the one taking sentences out of context and getting it wrong. Super 35mm 4 perf is used for anamorphic shoots and printed to the neg UNSQUEEZED From there its up to the director to decide where it goes after that. This is what I actually said.
Even this statement is a bit condescending to the poster. Obviously Anamorphic is printed as 4 perf on Super 35mm so of course he is meaning unsqueezed. The rest of the statement is okay but why the rudeness and superior attitude?
 

Both Super 35 and anamorphic 35mm are 4-perf 35mm formats.

 

No they are not Super 35mm is the umbrella 4 perf 3 perf fall under. Super 35 basicly describes the removal of the soundtrack in order to make way for a larger frame size Hence the name Super.

 

QuoteSuper 35mm is full silent aperture and spherical

 

Correct


 

and an acquisition format.

 

Correct
 

[markm]

In the case of what I was responding to my tone might have been a response to the mentioning of "perfs" which is an irrelevant component to FOV given the context of "anamorphic".  By this time all hope for clarity for the OP had virtually been lost and the thread was a complete mess.

 

 

A mess you and Andy helped create.

 

Anamorphic 35mm is both an acquisition

and

release format.

 

Correct. 
 

Before you can champion standards and precise thinking you need to also be correct in your precise use of standards.

 

 
Point out where I haven't?
 

Seriously, dude.  I welcome anyone to point out when I'm wrong about anything.  You're the one going on about "standards" and misuse and have been the most un-knowledgeable poster here.  I would also like to point out that I'm likely in the 1% of this board that's actually worked extensively with 35mm material and in the context of my work I have to be precise.  It's why I absolutely loathe the whole concept of "crop factor", because I consider them imprecise bullshit and often completely irrelevant when introduced into a motion picture conversation.

 

 Okay Dude. I think we can agree on your crop factor statement Maybe then this thread already deteriorated with the crop factor bollocks.

I was paying you a compliment by originally not wanting to believe you were this wrong here, hence the "troll" comment.

 

 The thing is Sean I did misunderstand him and a simple explanation would have been fine instead of the crap that followed.
 
 

I fully admit aggression though.  I'll own that.  You better be capable of bringing it if you want to dispute or argue something with me.

 

 
I don't need aggression to prove my point. Using aggression is a cheap way to forcing your will rightly or wrongly on others. It wont work on me. So fire away.
 

You better be able to actually argue, not simply state an opinion.  I don't respect opinion I respect argument.  If I'm wrong about something, I'm wrong and I'm not too proud to admit it.  But you had better be able to prove it and back it up.

 

 
 I just did

[Sean Cunningham]

 

You're the one taking sentences out of context and getting it wrong. Super 35mm 4 perf is used for anamorphic shoots and printed to the neg UNSQUEEZED From there its up to the director to decide where it goes after that. ..

 

 

No.  This is entirely wrong.   Please just stop Mark.

 

 

 

 I just did

 

Actually, no.  You've continued to simply re-state incorrect information.  That's okay, I don't care anymore.  This is boring now.  Goodbye.

[markm]

Sean it is clear that Kubrick is an exception to the rule You seem to write a lot standing still Completely miss the point and then act like you just won an award for being clever?

IE the see Mark comment. Maybe you're trying to hard Have you though about some deep breaths?