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

[Bruno]

...very rarely will you see short focal lengthes in serious films or i.e. horror films. Cinema DOPs tend to use lenses above the 50mm full frame equivalent. Or they have an astonishingly small set that they want to appear much bigger. Then they use the wide lenses so that they appear as normal lenses. Good idea, one could think, but that requires care, experience and high quality lenses.

 

This assumption comes up too often, but as Sean was saying, it's completely wrong.

 

Wide angles have been used with great results on probably all genres, it's a matter of choice. You say wide lenses are rarely used in serious films when actually comedy might be the genre where they are used the least!

 

The Harry Potter films got more serious towards the end and most shots were 21mm or even 18mm, and there's tons of other examples out there, it's a stylistic choice, not something imposed by the genre. Not all horror films look the same, not all action films look the same, not all comedies or dramas look the same... the genre has very little to do with which lenses you should use, the same way the lenses you use will not define a style alone.

 

And please... don't feed Mark.

[markm]

Obviously Bruno you disagree with everything I have said but instead of putting forward your reasons it is far easier to join in the name calling and putdowns.

I actually agree with what you said re lenses are not specific to a genre Of course they are not and Axel didn't say they were but then really you redefined and set the question up and answered it.

I don't want to speak for Axel but from what I took from it is not that wide angles weren't used but that they were used rarely in horror or serious film Undoubtably meaning preference given to other lenses especially for smaller sets. But as usual your to busy showboating to see the finer detail. Of course Wide angles are used but often serious and horror films are made for less than the mainstreamfilms and it stands to reason what Axel said However not all Horror or serious films are low budget and when that is the case wides are often used.

But then that is really just common sense isn't it?

[Bruno]

I don't see how budget has anything to do with this... I also don't see how I redefined the question, I even quoted it.

[markm]

I don't see how budget has anything to do with this... I also don't see how I redefined the question, I even quoted it.

That's the problem Bruno!

[Quirky]

Hi I saw this video 

'>

 if I have a GH3 does this mean I shouldn't do 2x crop factor when selecting a lens to match 35mm when doing primarily video?   

[markm]

I'm not quite sure what exactly you mean by doing the 2x crop factor in this particular case but I'd say no, it doesn't mean that. 
I'd suggest that you just ignore that video and all the fancy cinema format names for the time being, and concentrate on what you wish to shoot right now.
 
When choosing a lens for your GH3 (or for any other stills+video camera ftm), it's a good idea to keep the usual crop factor in mind. That is, the one used on the photo side of things. It's a useful point of reference, commonly used to define the lenses that go for your camera, for example. The fact that the cinema side have their own names for their points of reference doesn't change that.
 
To simplify things for now, just ignore the Super35, Super16 and such, even including the varying aspect ratios, and concentrate on the photographic references, like
 
1."Full Frame" (=35mm film shot in horizontal mode, aka 24x36mm, no crop factor)
2. APS-C (=1.5x crop factor, roughly about the same as Super35, 35mm film shot in vertical mode w/ audio track)
3. mFT (=2x crop factor, Panasonic/Olympus).
There are others, like the so called 1'' sensor, which is close to the Super16 format (close to 3x crop), but you can ignore it, for now.
 
A lens that gives you the field of view of a standard lens with the GH3 is 25mm (2x 25mm = 50mm, the classic standard lens in photo terms).
 
Which means that if you wish to have a wideangle lens for your GH3, (when you wish to shoot fluent steadicam floats, for example), you'll need to choose a lens that is way less than 25mm. A 24mm lens in a FF camera is considered a reasonable (often sufficient) wideangle. So in mFT terms you'd get similar (sufficiently wide) field of view with a 12mm lens.
 
If you had an APS-C camera (close to Super35 in cinema terms), the same field of view would be accomplished with a 16mm lens (1.5 x 16mm = 24mm).
 
Again, a standard lens (good for a lot of general shooting) would be 50mm for a Canon 5D3, a 35mm for a Sony NEX, and 25mm for a Panasonic GH3.
 
There are a lot of inexpensive yet very nice classic 35mm and 50mm lenses around, which will fit all those cameras with a suitable adapter, so it pays off to keep the 2x crop factor in mind. A classic 50mm means a lens of 100mm field of view in the GH3, and the 35mm lens would still be 70mm equivalent, still a telephoto field of view. You might want something a bit wider than that for most of your video shooting.
 
This all may sound a bit confusing at first, especially if you start bringing in the cinema terms in the mix, but it becomes pretty clear after a short while. So just keep the 2x crop factor in mind, and your life will be much easier.
 
Better still, try the lens in your camera and see what the view looks like before you buy one. Remember also that there is no right or wrong lens, so you can choose whatever focal length you wish, as long as it works for you and helps in achieving your goal.
 
There's plenty of time to geek out about the cinema formats and terms later on, and then join the merry nerdy-nam-nam above.  :P
That's my 2c, hopefully it helps with the confusion, rather than making it worse.

Yes just ignore Super 35 and Super 16 standards and follow Quirky not the merry nam nam. This just gets better and better

[Sean Cunningham]

This assumption comes up too often, but as Sean was saying, it's completely wrong.

 

Wide angles have been used with great results on probably all genres, it's a matter of choice. You say wide lenses are rarely used in serious films when actually comedy might be the genre where they are used the least!

 

 

Last night I watched American Hustle and it was mostly shot on a 24mm, all steadicam, where the operator moved in from wides to two-shots or tighter framing.  Lots of long takes.  Not only was the lens not overly distorting for the wides (like the annoying steadicam work in The Conjuring) but I didn't, in this instance, miss the giant, creamy bokeh of a CU/portrait lens for every close-up.  Detail and skin rendition was not diminished any more than the magnitude of the performance and drama.

[andy lee]

sounds good will have to go see American Hustle ,

[andy lee]

just seen American Hustle and they do love those steady cam shots , its a superb film!! very rich colours in the grade too ...go see!

[Darklylit]

Hey guys,

I'm new to this forum and new to DSLR filmmaking,so please be gentle! I've been reading the last three pages of posts and it's interesting to say the least. I have a "quick" question just to clarify all this S35 vs Digital Crop factor for myself:

 

So is the Field of View (what you ACTUALLY see) through a 35mm motion picture camera(S35) viewfinder equivalent to the field of view/crop factor on an APSC sensor camera's viewfinder? That is, when shooting with 35mm motion picture FILM, will a 50mm lens function/show the field of view of an 80mm lens(1.6x crop)? If this is true, then I assume that all this time if someone has talked about using a 50mm lens, shot with 35mm motion picture FILM(S35), they're actually SEEING an 80mm image through their 35mm motion picture  camera(S35). Correct or not?

It's the first I"ve heard of it, but I've never shot with a 35mm motion picture camera, so please illuminate me.  Thanks a lot.

 

Drew

[andy lee]

that is correct

[Sean Cunningham]

Partly true, that about motion picture 35mm being roughly equivalent to APS-C is true (it's more like 1.45x crop versus stills 35mm).  Because film runs through the motion picture camera vertically instead of horizontally like an SLR.

 

 

...That is, when shooting with 35mm motion picture FILM, will a 50mm lens function/show the field of view of an 80mm lens(1.6x crop)? If this is true, then I assume that all this time if someone has talked about using a 50mm lens, shot with 35mm motion picture FILM(S35), they're actually SEEING an 80mm image through their 35mm motion picture  camera(S35). Correct or not?

 

 

When shooting with a 50mm lens on 35mm motion picture film camera (shooting Super 35mm, this won't always be the case) you see the field of view of a 72mm lens on a full size SLR.  That distinction is only meaningful if you're using a full size SLR as your main point of reference.  Motion picture cinematographers will tend to think of and plan for what a given focal length looks like on a motion picture camera and don't really need to do conversions between motion picture FOV and SLR field of view.  It's a pointless exercise unless they've scouted a location with a still camera and established the framing they wish to have in the film.  If they've done this scouting with a director's viewfinder or one of several apps that lets you preview framing and lens selection there is no need for these sorts of gymnastics.  The equivalency is often nothing more than trivia.

[Darklylit]

Thanks a lot you guys. It's interesting and evidently confusing that, when discussing HD video, that there ever was a conversation about crop factor when most APSC sensors on DSLR's are close to 35mm motion picture film (S35). Someone posted this http://www.rogerdeakins.com/forum2/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1580 in a previous thread and was helpful too. It's likely Roger Deakins used the same lenses when he was shooting on film as he now does on the Arri Alexa.

 

It's funny that there seems to be so many arguments about this when really what should be talked about is Framing/Composition, not crop factors. Until yesterday, I had no idea that what you have confirmed was, in fact, the case through most of the history of 35mm motion picture film production. A 50mm lens has "almost always"(apart from 8 perf film and vista vision) given about a 72-80mm field of view/focal length, a 32mm lens about a 50mm field of view/focal length and so on. I find it interesting that so many shooters talk about how humans see at about a 50mm focal length and suggest that beginners buy a "nifty fifty"(50mm f1.8) for this very reason yet, unless you're shooting with a 5D Mk II or Mk III, you're actually seeing an 80mm focal length( on a 1.6 crop sensor), NOT a 50mm. (hence the reason why Deakins uses a 32mm most of the time).
 

At any rate, thanks for making that clear. Much appreciated.

 

Cheers!

[Sean Cunningham]

Yeah, those observations regarding what is "normal" go back to pre-digital days and SLR shooting. The problem moving forward is people read something, some rule of thumb or what have you, and they might want to carry it over without fully appreciating the context of its origination.  They might not fully understand the concept being discussed or how their situation might be different but they have a desire to do things "the right way" and aren't always aware of when something is applicable or not.

 

Jumping from film to something like the Alexa or RED or one of the contemporary Sony cameras doesn't introduce a radical change in FOV expectations.  Lens selection becomes more about color and sharpness as seen by the digital sensor, which might be entirely different than the same lens and film.  

[Damphousse]

It's funny that there seems to be so many arguments about this when really what should be talked about is Framing/Composition, not crop factors. Until yesterday, I had no idea that what you have confirmed was, in fact, the case through most of the history of 35mm motion picture film production. A 50mm lens has "almost always"(apart from 8 perf film and vista vision) given about a 72-80mm field of view/focal length, a 32mm lens about a 50mm field of view/focal length and so on. I find it interesting that so many shooters talk about how humans see at about a 50mm focal length and suggest that beginners buy a "nifty fifty"(50mm f1.8) for this very reason yet, unless you're shooting with a 5D Mk II or Mk III, you're actually seeing an 80mm focal length( on a 1.6 crop sensor), NOT a 50mm. (hence the reason why Deakins uses a 32mm most of the time).
 

 

 

Well a lot of that advice that you see is refering to film SLRs which with rare exception in the consumer world were "full frame" 35mm.  You also have to understand that most people who have interchangable lens cameras don't use anything smaller than APS-C.  50mm on an APS-C sensor is still a reasonable and useful lens.  People suggest getting it as one of your first lenses even on an APS-C camera because you can get a sharp, low distortion, fast, full auto, OEM nifty fifty for about $100.  I look at people funny who don't have one in their bag.  You can do a lot of low light and experemintal stuff with bokeh with a fast nifty fifty.  I mean you can buy a nifty fifty for about $100 and experiment with it before sinking hundreds of dollars in another lens.

 

I suggest that lens to all my APS-C friends and everyone that has bought it and played with it is thoroughly satisfied.  You just can't get any other f/1.8 lens for anywhere near $100.

 

And crop factors make sense because it is a common language.  Film makers that actually know focal lengths are a minority.  I personally don't know any.  Most consumers used a video camera that just said X8 zoom or whatever on the side.  The only reference most consumers have for focal lengths is 35mm film.  I say this as someone who shoots medium format film.  Historically there were far more medium format shooters than movie film shooters.  But we don't go around saying we should use 6x6 focal lengths as the reference.  It's not really something people should get hung up on.  Just use the appropriate crop factor and be done with it.

[fuzzynormal]

very rarely will you see short focal lengths in...horror films.

 

We must not watch the same horror films.

[Michael1]

Crop factor doesn't really work (not precisely anyway) when you are comparing two formats with different aspect ratios.  Unfortunately, the crop factor measurement is based on diagonal measurements.

 

Michael

[Darklylit]

I've never actually used a "nifty fifty"(Canon 50mm f1.8). As I shoot only video with my Canon T3i, I bought a Nikon E series 50mm f1.8 with an EOS adaptor for $40. Has anyone compared the two and can you tell me which is sharper? Neither has image stabilzation (unlike the Canon 18-55mm kit lens) so it is a lot shakier than the kit lens, even on a shoulder rig or mono-pod. Both are f1.8, so fast lenses, but the NIkon doesn't seem quite as sharp as the kit lens and I find I use the kit lens a lot more because of the IS. Thoughts/opinions? Thanks.