Laughable Chris and Jordan video on medium format

[Emanuel]

5 hours ago, kye said:

What I was asking was if higher resolutions made sensor size more 'noticeable'.

ie, back in the day, we had S16, MFT, S35, and FF cameras that all shot a maximum of 1080p.  At this time there would have been people shooting video on all of these and so there would have been a certain aesthetic impression of what sensor size contributed.

Now, we have MFT, S35, FF, and MF cameras that are shooting 4K or above.  I'm wondering if there is now more of an aesthetic difference between these sensor sizes.  ie, "When we shot 1080p it wasn't that noticeable, but now with 4K I can tell a FF sensor from a mile-away!" or the opposite.

The reason I ask is that you said that your impressions of MF/FF vs smaller was only about stills images.  Stills are likely to be higher resolution than video, so I was wondering if it was the resolution bump from the stills that made format differences visible to you.

  

5 hours ago, kye said:

(I would imagine that shooting in 240p would make sensor sizes very difficult to discern, so it makes me wonder if increased resolutions have the opposite effect.  Once again, trying to gather peoples impressions and see if we can learn anything about what might be causing these impressions for people)

 

Love your reflections, mate! < 3 Art is all about that, in a word: perception :- )

[Django]

7 hours ago, kye said:

I'm wondering if there is now more of an aesthetic difference between these sensor sizes.  ie, "When we shot 1080p it wasn't that noticeable, but now with 4K I can tell a FF sensor from a mile-away!" or the opposite.

The reason I ask is that you said that your impressions of MF/FF vs smaller was only about stills images.  Stills are likely to be higher resolution than video, so I was wondering if it was the resolution bump from the stills that made format differences visible to you.

Ok I understand better what you are asking and its a valid observation.

There could be some truth to that. I know that with 4K and above my lens properties are certainly more visible so one could probably argue higher resolution enhances the sensor size look.

But the reason I said that, was probably more just because I've been shooting FF stills since basically a kid with point & shoot film camera. That aesthetic is just burned in my mind. Whereas in film there have always been several standards including 8/16mm. In digital cinema Super35 has now long been the norm so that also plays a role on a subconscious level.

But things are going full-circle, a lot of high-end DP's are going FF or even LF with the Alexa65. A throwback to the two big cinema film standards 35mm & 65mm.

Netflix's Ozark DP had this to say when described switching from the Varicam (S35) to FF on the Venice:

““ I started as a still photographer on 35mm film. It creates a feeling. For example, I can describe it like shooting Super 8 versus full-frame, I feel like I’m watching it in a box, from far away. As a viewer, I feel distant, even in a close-up. It’s nostalgic, but I don’t feel connected. TV lives in the world of a medium close-up. We never go really tight. In full-frame, you still feel close.

As Kutchins described, they took older Leica R lenses and rehoused them, which gave them the ability to shoot wide open.

It opens so super wide. I was intrigued by it as we went down the wormhole with the family, in isolation and distrust. I was intrigued to use the wider aperture to create more character separation. I love the result. Both Armando and I were excited by the possibilities. We play with depth of field and with lenses to create a separation from character in the background. Even with a wide lens, you can feel the character coming into my space and coming into the living room.
That’s what we’re trying to do as filmmakers, create a presence in 2D space."

In the end I guess it's really all about the lenses and how different size sensors translates them to your screen to achieve a certain type of scenery/separation/connection.

 

[kye]

15 minutes ago, Django said:

Ok I understand better what you are asking and its a valid observation.

There could be some truth to that. I know that with 4K and above my lens properties are certainly more visible so one could probably argue higher resolution enhances the sensor size look.

But the reason I said that, was probably more just because I've been shooting FF stills since basically a kid with point & shoot film camera. That aesthetic is just burned in my mind. Whereas in film there have always been several standards including 8/16mm. In digital cinema Super35 has now long been the norm so that also plays a role on a subconscious level.

But things are going full-circle, a lot of high-end DP's are going FF or even LF with the Alexa65. A throwback to the two big cinema film standards 35mm & 65mm.

Netflix's Ozark DP had this to say when described switching from the Varicam (S35) to FF on the Venice:

““ I started as a still photographer on 35mm film. It creates a feeling. For example, I can describe it like shooting Super 8 versus full-frame, I feel like I’m watching it in a box, from far away. As a viewer, I feel distant, even in a close-up. It’s nostalgic, but I don’t feel connected. TV lives in the world of a medium close-up. We never go really tight. In full-frame, you still feel close.

As Kutchins described, they took older Leica R lenses and rehoused them, which gave them the ability to shoot wide open.

It opens so super wide. I was intrigued by it as we went down the wormhole with the family, in isolation and distrust. I was intrigued to use the wider aperture to create more character separation. I love the result. Both Armando and I were excited by the possibilities. We play with depth of field and with lenses to create a separation from character in the background. Even with a wide lens, you can feel the character coming into my space and coming into the living room.
That’s what we’re trying to do as filmmakers, create a presence in 2D space."

In the end I guess it's really all about the lenses and how different size sensors translates them to your screen to achieve a certain type of scenery/separation/connection.

The quote from Ozark presents a common view - "the FF look is having shallower DoF".  Or a fast wide image.

I don't want to say that it's wrong, but it's kind of not actually about sensor size, but about lenses.  The myth is that you can't get shallow DoF on crop sensors, but the reality is that nothing is stopping this from happening except that they don't make the lenses required (eg, fast wides) or they're so expensive that the people who can afford them just shoot FF anyway (eg, Voigtlanders).

It's like if I bought a set of paint-brushes and only bought black and white paints, painted in black and white for ages, and then said "these paint brushes have a 'look' - they lack a certain lifelike quality to the images".  Obviously this would be ridiculous as the lifeless quality would be the paint I used with the brushes, not the brushes themselves.

Of course, there's not much point in saying that an iPhone sensor can do anything a FF sensor can do, all it needs is a lens that no-one has ever designed or built or sold, because that's ignoring the fact you need a lens to make an image.  I imagine that much of this reasoning (of shallow DoF) was historic rather than now where fast glass is everywhere, so it's less-relevant now, I think.

The same type of logic could be argued for other factors as well, like DR, noise, etc, which differed between sensors due to limits of the technology rather than the physical size of the sensor having some fundamental limitation.  

Having said all that, I'm still wondering if there's other factors that sensor size contributes to that might be causing an aesthetic difference.  I'm curious to hear any other thoughts you might have.

[MrSMW]

I was having this same/similar conversation with a camera student doing some basic tuition yesterday.

2/3rds sensor bridge camera with built in zoom wondering why "even at f18 the pics weren't sharp?!"

There are limitations to everything and providing you understand what those limitations are..

I noticed an 'aesthetic difference' switching from 16mp Olympus 4/3rd sensor to 24mp Fuji XH1 1080 to 26mp Fuji XT3 4k and the again moving to Panny S5/S1H 4k full frame. 

But what is this 'aesthetic difference'? 

Hard to put in words isn't it and we all have different tastes...

Plus it's not just the camera, but the lens, any filters, your technique, the settings, the software used for productions, your own personal grading, the calibration of your monitor, the upload resolution, the quality of their viewing device.

The variables are enormous but the one thing I don't think anyone can argue against is that the bigger the sensor/film stock used, with lens choice and other factors being more or less 'equal', there is a fairly distinctive difference in look.

I'm drawn ever more to the larger sensor look. There's just 'something' about it that appeals to me.

[Andrew Reid]

It does come down to taste at the end of the day.

Personally speaking I think sensor size and a particular lens combination is 80% of what defines the cinematic look. Other stuff can only spoil it or require workarounds to improve (like moire, 30fps, or limited dynamic range). Even then, the other things can work to the advantage of certain material. YouTubers like 30fps because it gives pre-recorded videos a more 'live' broadcast feel.

Whether you choose to shoot Super 16mm with a vintage lens, or full frame with a clinically sharp modern lens, or prefer medium format lenses, or even full frame lenses on medium format that cover, or anamorphic lenses on Super 35mm, is purely a matter of taste. Personally I like them all for different projects.

What DPReview Chris is saying isn't factually wrong about equivalence and matching a similar look across three different sensor sizes, but the sweeping conclusion he makes from it is wild.

Just because he was able to make medium format look similar to APS-C at F1.8, his conclusion is basically "what's the point of medium format, nothing special about it"

[MrSMW]

I don't know if anyone else has seen it, but presume some have and that is the series VOIR on Netflix.

OK, it's not uber-high brow viewing but more an upmarket piece of fluff, but I'm enjoying it.

The tag line is 'for the love of cinema' (or something along those lines).

I just watched I think Episode 4 the other day which was a piece about cinema vs TV.

All pretty obvious really...but at the same time, sometimes you need something really shoving in your face for it to click.

The difference between the TV shows and the movie versions was HUGE.

The TV show that span off into the movie Heat.

The Crown 'TV' series vs the movie about HRH, The Queen.

The production levels of some of the series on Netflix or Prime etc is in growing proportion, insane. Visually stunning.

Which reminds me of that little S1H sci fi short film, admittedly shot with gazillion dollar lenses, but it's 'Hollywood' level visuals.

Budget budget budget, I know. Manpower. Lighting. Yada yada, - the camera is almost the least important component these days. Maybe has been for some time...

[Emanuel]

4 hours ago, Django said:

There could be some truth to that. I know that with 4K and above my lens properties are certainly more visible so one could probably argue higher resolution enhances the sensor size look.

For sure, reason why it makes little to no sense to deny 4K and above don't bring anything new as I've read here a few times... ; )

So @Andrew Reid is also on the spot with his 80% quote over the look : )

Even though, to couple "space", cinema is also and mainly "time" where stuff such as cadence, frame rate, shutter etc., play a no less relevant role (EAG :- )

[Django]

2 hours ago, kye said:

The quote from Ozark presents a common view - "the FF look is having shallower DoF".  Or a fast wide image.

I don't want to say that it's wrong, but it's kind of not actually about sensor size, but about lenses.  The myth is that you can't get shallow DoF on crop sensors, but the reality is that nothing is stopping this from happening except that they don't make the lenses required (eg, fast wides) or they're so expensive that the people who can afford them just shoot FF anyway (eg, Voigtlanders).

Of course its about lenses.. AND how they interact on a sensor size.

Going FF for the Ozark DP allowed him to rehouse and use Leica R glass with the same feel as on 35mm film. 

No need to hunt down an impossible to find 23mm f0.95 equivalent just to get the standard 35mm f1.4 FoV/Dof look.

And yes I know all about Voigtlander but that is just one speciality lens maker.

Speedboosters are another common trick to achieve FF but then we're really talking "faux-full-frame".

Going FF opens you up to fast wides from all popular lens makers from all periods of time.

And like I said earlier it's not just about DoF. A 23mm has more distortion than a 35mm. Both in FoV & perspective. 

In the end it's subjective, again I am not a FF elitist when it comes to video/film. I also love Super35 and the thousands of modern classics shot on Alexas, REDs, Varicams etc..

But there is a convenience of just popping on any FF lens and the focal length aperture is what it is. no math involved.

 

[kye]

6 hours ago, Django said:

Of course its about lenses.. AND how they interact on a sensor size.

<snip>

Going FF opens you up to fast wides from all popular lens makers from all periods of time.

<snip>

But there is a convenience of just popping on any FF lens and the focal length aperture is what it is. no math involved.

That makes sense, as definitely more classic FF stills lenses around than other formats.

Your "no math involved" logic isn't so straight-forwards though, in cinema at least.  For years I consumed content designed for consumers where FF was the reference.  I learned that a 50mm lens was a 'normal' lens as its focal length was similar to the diagonal on a 35mm frame, compares to how the mind 'sees', and I also learned that the 50mm is a very common lens on shooting films.  I learned that S35 was the standard format for film and all about 3-perf and 4-perf and Vistavision and .....  umm, hang on!

When we learn that The Godfather was shot purely on a 40mm lens, that's on film, so is a 58mm FF FOV - right?  and Psycho and its 50mm is a 72mm FF FOV - right?  

I genuinely don't know how many times I heard about a 50mm lens and thought "that's a 50mm FF FOV".

https://www.premiumbeat.com/blog/7-reasons-why-a-nifty-50mm-lens-should-be-your-go-to-lens/

Maybe your comment "no math involved" is right.  But instead of math being required, maybe we should replace it with confusion rather than clarity!

 

6 hours ago, Django said:

And like I said earlier it's not just about DoF. A 23mm has more distortion than a 35mm. Both in FoV & perspective. 

This is another one that I'm not sure about.

If this were true then a 10mm lens on a S16mm camera should be unwatchable, yet it looks similar to a 28mm lens on FF.  In fact a 10mm lens was a pretty common lens back in the day - so common that almost anyone can afford to buy an Angenieux!

https://www.ebay.com/itm/154807066202?hash=item240b385e5a:g:-BAAAOSwehBh4xlM

[filmmakereu]

These guys are right. No math involved logic and perception are the cinema.

[PannySVHS]

The Angie above might be a 16mm lens though.:)

I think I tried one a few months ago from a 16mm Beaulieu camera. I kept an Angie 75 which covers Mft and almost S35. It gives me a very exiting look on Mft.

There is an awesome comparison of Arri Alexa cameras with their sensor - lens couplings and the resulting looks, done by a DOP with a great hand for such a test setup.

I surely recognize that this test is not about same DOF but about look of sensor and lens pairings providing equal POVs. It always gives me clicks and gotchya moments. Enjoy and draw your conclusions.

Edit: there is a DOF equivalent part of the test. So even more to enjoy.

 

https://manuelluebbers.com/large-format-look-alexa-65-vs-alexa-mini/

 

 

[greenscreen]

59 minutes ago, filmmakereu said:

These guys are right. No math involved logic and perception are the cinema.

There isn't any confusion at all involved because math isn't applied. Perception doesn't need to be less scientific than math.

[kye]

8 hours ago, PannySVHS said:

The Angie above might be a 16mm lens though.:)

I think I tried one a few months ago from a 16mm Beaulieu camera. I kept an Angie 75 which covers Mft and almost S35. It gives me a very exiting look on Mft.

There is an awesome comparison of Arri Alexa cameras with their sensor - lens couplings and the resulting looks, done by a DOP with a great hand for such a test setup.

I surely recognize that this test is not about same DOF but about look of sensor and lens pairings providing equal POVs. It always gives me clicks and gotchya moments. Enjoy and draw your conclusions.

Edit: there is a DOF equivalent part of the test. So even more to enjoy.

 

https://manuelluebbers.com/large-format-look-alexa-65-vs-alexa-mini/

 

 

That's a fascinating video, but probably for all the wrong reasons.

I spent over a dozen hours when it was released with a range of shots from it, adjusting them in post to be a more equal match.  By the time you take the Alexa Mini shots and adjust the vignette, barrel distortion, contrast, colour, diffusion, sharpening, and cropping to make the frames much more comparable, the differences are greatly diminished between the s35 and LF sensors.

I HIGHLY HIGHLY HIGHLY recommend that everyone downloads the video, pulls it into Resolve and tries to adjust the images to be more similar.  I learned an incredible amount about imaging from this exercise.  It really gave me an appreciation for how much better the colour science is on the 65 than the Mini - despite the Mini being spectacular in its own right to begin with.  ARRI truly did an incredible job in its development.

It's a difficult thing to match them as the vignetting is very non-linear and so all I could do was approximate it.  I went the full-way and spent hours adjusting one image while it was on top of the other with a "difference" blending mode so I was only seeing the mathematical difference between the images, trying to line up everything perfectly to minimise the errors.  I performed individual colour grades on different parts of the image in this mode, eliminating tints and shifts in the colour science, etc etc.  Most of the adjustments were non-linear in this sense.

Unfortunately I couldn't get them to match closely enough to "see through" the various optical differences and answer the question if there was a difference between the sensors.

It's a great test to demonstrate the difference between the two cameras, but a terrible test to show the effects of only the sensor size.  As great as an Alexa Mini is, the 65 is a far superior image, so in a way it's like comparing a GH1 kit-lens combo with a Sony Venice Masterprime combo and saying the difference is due to the sensor sizes.

[PannySVHS]

@kye
The video does show the differences of sensor sizes on various levels, fi further in the video at 13min 50sec it shows how much much cleaner the footage with the 65 is. Like you said, a great or must watch for image lovers. Thread closed 😊

[Django]

17 hours ago, kye said:

That makes sense, as definitely more classic FF stills lenses around than other formats.

Your "no math involved" logic isn't so straight-forwards though, in cinema at least.  For years I consumed content designed for consumers where FF was the reference.  I learned that a 50mm lens was a 'normal' lens as its focal length was similar to the diagonal on a 35mm frame, compares to how the mind 'sees', and I also learned that the 50mm is a very common lens on shooting films.  I learned that S35 was the standard format for film and all about 3-perf and 4-perf and Vistavision and .....  umm, hang on!

When we learn that The Godfather was shot purely on a 40mm lens, that's on film, so is a 58mm FF FOV - right?  and Psycho and its 50mm is a 72mm FF FOV - right?  

I genuinely don't know how many times I heard about a 50mm lens and thought "that's a 50mm FF FOV".

https://www.premiumbeat.com/blog/7-reasons-why-a-nifty-50mm-lens-should-be-your-go-to-lens/

Maybe your comment "no math involved" is right.  But instead of math being required, maybe we should replace it with confusion rather than clarity!

Yeah it gets even more confusing in digital cinema as "Super35" isn't even a standard within camera manufacturers.

Quick search reveals that:  the ARRI Alexa has a sensor that is 4:3, 23.8 x 17.8mm. The Canon C200 uses a 16:9 sensor at 24.6 x 13.8 mm. Panasonic gave the EVA-1 a 4:3 sensor at 24.89 x 18.66 mm. Blackmagic with their 23.1 x 12.99 mm in the BMPCC 6K. All of these are marketed as Super 35, but if you put the same lens on each of these cameras you’ll end up with a slight variation in the image crop.

With FF its 36x24mm all across.

Quote

This is another one that I'm not sure about.

If this were true then a 10mm lens on a S16mm camera should be unwatchable, yet it looks similar to a 28mm lens on FF.  In fact a 10mm lens was a pretty common lens back in the day - so common that almost anyone can afford to buy an Angenieux!

https://www.ebay.com/itm/154807066202?hash=item240b385e5a:g:-BAAAOSwehBh4xlM

That's a S16 lens though. I was talking about adapting FF lenses to crop sensors.

7 hours ago, kye said:

It's a great test to demonstrate the difference between the two cameras, but a terrible test to show the effects of only the sensor size.  As great as an Alexa Mini is, the 65 is a far superior image, so in a way it's like comparing a GH1 kit-lens combo with a Sony Venice Masterprime combo and saying the difference is due to the sensor sizes.

I wouldn't go that far, both cams are using top-notch ARRI lenses!

I think it's a wonderful test, depending on what you're looking for. The second clip with the 35mm vs 70mm shows such a huge difference. It's whole other feel/look. 

Disregarding FoV/DoF comparisons, the clearest variable is resolution difference (6K vs 3.8K). That kinda flaws the comparison if trying to be objective but it's actually pertinent to the original discussion considering medium format usually has about double megapixel res than FF. and as we were saying one could argue higher resolution enhances the lens rendition.

The vignetting on the 65's wide sensor vs the center crop on the mini also shows how you're getting the full characteristics of the lens circle. That alone is huge imo (especially on a $30-40K ARRI prime lens lol). You can fake vignetting/edge blur etc in post but as you said it's going to be approximate.. and fake. 

The 65's bigger sensor also does much better in lowlight, even though the mini has pleasing filmic noise. 

Haven't done a deep dive with the footage as you have so I'm sure a bunch of other details/variables are present but resolution/low light aside I may prefer the Alexa on some shots. Guess I'm also conditioned/biased towards the overall look & feel of its IQ. 

[kye]

@Django @PannySVHS I really truly would encourage you to compare the footage yourself.

There are SO MANY tiny differences between them, and they're often too subtle to see unless you're flipping between them in an NLE.  However, once you equalise them, or get close even, you'd be amazed at how much the gap closes.

9 hours ago, PannySVHS said:

@kye
The video does show the differences of sensor sizes on various levels, fi further in the video at 13min 50sec it shows how much much cleaner the footage with the 65 is. Like you said, a great or must watch for image lovers. Thread closed 😊

Some differences aren't that subtle though.  Like you said - let's look at 13:50.

The 65 is quite obviously brighter.  Guess what.  Making an image brighter makes it nicer!  A common trick in colour grading is to track a window over the main subject in a shot and add a bit of contrast and raise the brightness.  Even a subtle touch of this changes the entire composition of an image, it's such a powerful effect.  Here, you get it for free from the camera/lens/grade.

There are a dozen other things different between the shots, mostly too subtle to see, but they add up.  

Doing the comparisons yourself is a masterclass in aesthetics, and why this isn't a good comparison for sensor size.

[PannySVHS]

@DjangoEva 1 sensor is not as tall. Would love it to be though.😊 Should be 24.6 x 12.97mm regarding Panny Pro website. The camera news sites got it wrong. Maybe Panny gives the Gh6 a Super35 4to3 sensor!😊 @kye   I got  a lot out of the comparison I posted. Difference is there to my eyes despite the possibilities of postwork.

[Django]

@kye  sorry but can't say I agree, frankly I don't see how anyone could make a better sensor size comparison? sounds to me like you're focusing too much on the exposure, color science etc in your grading experiments to match both cameras. that wasn't at all the point of the test and the differences in exposure and color are due mostly to the 3D rig that means one camera is shooting through a mirror which makes you lose a stop of light and color shifts as the DP states himself:

"Thanks! The color shifts are due to the mirror of the 3D rig which unfortunately makes it impossible to compare color. Also, the different ND Filters and lenses are influencing the image. If you would shoot without this specific 3D-Rig setup, the colors would match because both cameras are based on the same color science."

So while I'm sure you've learned a lot by attempting to match both cameras CS in post, that isn't what the test is about.

The first shot say a lot. Using a same 40mm lens on both sensors displays massive angle of view difference.

Second & last shots with angle of view matched by lens equivalency shows the huge differences in between a 35mm & 70mm (compression, DoF, bokeh) but also center crop vs full circle (vignetting, edge blur). 

Those DNA primes are made for the 65 and have so much mojo:

"The DNA LF lenses have an individuality, when most lenses these days are going for uniformity and technical perfection. They remind me of older anamorphic lenses, in terms of the very subtle vignetting and focus drop off."

While these lenses, created for the Alexa 65 could already be used on the Alexa LF, the obvious problem is this: on the Alexa LF you would only be using the very sharp center portion of the lenses for the larger format Alexa 65, thus loosing a lot of the characteristics that make the DNA lenses special.

This is exactly what I've been saying all along when adapting FF lenses to crop sensors. That said there are certain instances where you may not want vignetting, focus drop off, or even shallow DoF (without stopping down. Nice thing about FF is that most cams today allow you to crop to a S35. This is always a better solution than the reverse speed-boosting which brings in other optical issues.

The low light tests show the much noisier image of the smaller sensor. The 200% zoom-in shots the difference in resolution.

In the end, it's a very thorough and revealing test that showcases just about everything to consider about sensor sizes and their correlation to lens pairings on an aesthetic & technical level.

[kye]

@Django @PannySVHS You guys are hilarious.

I wonder if you can tell me what the colour science of the next canon camera will be like?  I mean, I know you haven't seen it, but you also haven't seen the Mini adjusted in post to match the 65, and you're confidently speaking about that!

Maybe you can compare the GH6 to the next Canon camera?

If I promise to take a video of the lottery numbers next week, can you tell me what that video contains?

That'd be great, thanks!

 

[webrunner5]

Hell Sony's Color Science is better for video now than Canon. They have lost their way. I was amazed looking at the latest batch of Canon cameras.