Why crop sensors are better than full frame

[Damphousse]

 But then I actually watched movies. Where is this shallow DOF? I don't really see it. I mean, pick a movie that really looks like a movie, Jaws, The Godfather, The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, Shawshank Redemption, or any other movie for that matter. There is very little shallow DOF, if any. I mean, I'm shooting at like F8 or F11 to get the cinema look.

 

Yeah I mean where are the drones, MÅVIs, super narrow shutter angles, heavy grading, etc?

 

If you had modern tech and remade all those movies with the same cast, crew, directors, etc they would be substantially better.  I love, LOVE The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, but man if that thing was shot with a proper budget and with modern tech it would have been even better. 

 

 

 

 

 

It seems like what I'm hearing is that it boils down to DOF and bokeh (yes I know those are different). Again, I'll go back to my point that if you are interested in making movies that look like movies (which I am and I realize not everyone is), then those two things aren't really that important.

 

A movie is about creating an illusion.  Shallow depth of field creates that illusion.  No one looks at a movie and remarks on the shallow depth of field.  They just know a movie doens't look like a video.  They don't know why.  It's like pornography.  They can't give you an all encompassing detailed definition... but they know it when they see it.  Use whatever you can to make a movie look "filmic."  It doesn't matter whether some director used the same technique 30 years ago.  I'm sure the directors of all the movies you mentioned would look at you like you were crazy if you said you were going to use the same tech as them to make a movie in 2014.

[Jonesy Jones]

Honestly, if they reshot Good, Bad, and Ugly, I would puke all over myself... on purpose!!! That film is utterly gorgeous. That is the last thing that film needs to redo. My biggest complaint about that film is the audio, which is atrocious. Really really bad adr. That aside, it's an amazing film. I think the thing that turns some folks off is the lengthy story development. It takes like 45 minutes to get to act 2. That was pretty typical though back then. Our attention spans these days are

[Wulf]

Reasonable arguments.

In practice, however, there is a simple reason why I would like to stay fullframe for ever  - I'm socialized with 24x36 since decades and as a wideangle prime lover, a 20 mm is not only a focal length nor an angle of view, but a special look of exactly that old glas. Allthough I like to keep my gear simple and small, I regulary found use for three totally different 20 mm lenses, for example a modern rectalinear zoom for straight lines (architecture, some landscapes), an old prime with a lot of moustache distorsion that IS GREAT for shooting people and sometimes a 16 mm fish with an 1.4 extender and an extension ring for some special closeups...

Of course the same could achieved with a speedbooster and Super35 might be the future as bigger sensors are disproportionally expensive. But 4/3 is obviously a nogo.

 

 

Regarding shallow DOF, I would agree on using it sparingly - more like an effect. It could be a great tool for portraits in special moments; IIRC both in 'Private Ryan' and in 'Gladiator' for example the DOP chooses to isolate the protagonist for a single short shot in the opening sequence(s). But all this shots are mostly done by at least f=4 and by having a greater distance to the now blurry background, so in short it's for me mostly a question of composition - remove all non-essential stuff out of the frame with an ultra shallow DOF as last resort...  :-)

[Michael1]

Does anyone really believe that given two cameras at the same price with the same features, people would pick the crop sensor over a full frame?

 

Let's face it, the Speed Booster is a very helpful product, but is also a bit of band-aid.  Any time you put things in the optical path, they introduce their own negative byproducts.  The cleaner the optical path the better.

 

Michael

[Axel]

Yeah I mean where are the drones, MÅVIs, super narrow shutter angles, heavy grading, etc?

 

If you had modern tech and remade all those movies with the same cast, crew, directors, etc they would be substantially better.  I love, LOVE The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, but man if that thing was shot with a proper budget and with modern tech it would have been even better. 

 

 

A remake that's better than the original (given the original is a classic) is the exeption. King Kong. The Jackson version remains faithful but enhances everything, the story and it's credibility (successfully suspending disbelief, though in this respect the 1933 version hits the nail on the head. The tricks never had been convincing, but they say, believe us anyway!). 

 

I really try but can't come up with a second example off the cuff.

 

Regarding shallow DOF, I would agree on using it sparingly - more like an effect. It could be a great tool for portraits in special moments; IIRC both in 'Private Ryan' and in 'Gladiator' for example the DOP chooses to isolate the protagonist for a single short shot in the opening sequence(s). But all this shots are mostly done by at least f=4 and by having a greater distance to the now blurry background, so in short it's for me mostly a question of composition - remove all non-essential stuff out of the frame with an ultra shallow DOF as last resort...  :-)

 

Sidney Lumet wrote on sDoF. He said he liked to show the set. If the set was distracting, the director and the designer had made a bad job.

 

This is exactly the position of old school filmmaking. I wouldn't like to make it a dogma, but I consider it a valid question: Why do I wish to blur the background? Better not because I am unable to frame, have no good location or are sloppy. And certainly not because I think sDoF will make video look like film ...

 

Let's face it, the Speed Booster is a very helpful product, but is also a bit of band-aid.  Any time you put things in the optical path, they introduce their own negative byproducts.  The cleaner the optical path the better.

 

There seem to be few negative side effects with the SBs. 

But all in all, you are right. Given the same price, the same size (portability) and the same codec options, everybody would choose the bigger sensor.

[Jonesy Jones]

Not everyone. Something else to throw into the mix is that cinema lenses are designed for S35. 

[hmcindie]

Where is this shallow DOF? I don't really see it. I mean, pick a movie that really looks like a movie, Jaws, The Godfather, The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, Shawshank Redemption, or any other movie for that matter. 

 

I just don't think you're noticing it because you're not looking for it while watching a well made film.

 

Jaws:

'>

 

Godfather:

'>

 

Look at the chair, it's already out of focus:

'>

 

The Good, The Bad and the Ugly was very specifically shot with deep dof, way more than usual.

 

Apocalypse Now (even the second character is blurring):

 

'>

 

Skyfall (Face shots are very often blurred up):

 

'>

 

Bladerunner (even Harrisons second eye is going out of focus here)

'>

 

Especially when shooting anamorphically s35 (which a lot of films do), you tend to get a very small dof area. It is absolutely an essential aesthetic. Have these new people just gotten used to smaller sensor cameras because where I'm from = larger sensor = larger oof area = more cinematic. There's a reason we used 35mm adapters in the golden days before DSLR's with every good looking independent film. You think people crave that speedbooster for nothing??

 

Saying that DOF isn't important is obviously coming from someone who hasn't shot much good looking stuff (knocking on wood)

[hmcindie]

For wide shots such as establishing shots (descriptive) deep focus is usually desirable, since you want to show a general impression of the setting and not focus the attention on a specific point. The problem comes when some unseasoned or untrained filmmaker...

 

Or you could say : "only unseasoned and untrained filmmakers use establishing shots"- anyway. That's why beginner films are full of shots of people moving from A to B ;)

 

Why could you not focus to specific point in an establishing shot? I can't come up with a reason. And if you can focus to a specific point in an establishing shot, why not with DOF? An establishing shot does not have to be wide. A wide shot can't have small dof? That's a silly "rule".

[Nikkor]

A wide shot can have shallow dof, but you will most likely have something out of focus in the foreground, and that's a problem with a wide shot.

 

Oh, forget about m43, that's way too big, iphone sensors are the way to go.

[Wulf]

good examples, hmcindie

 

but as I understand the TO was referring to the ultra THIN DOF so called 'DSLR-Look', like shooting with f= 1.4 or 2.0 on FF with >60 mm, which absolutely isolates the protagonist in a headshot.

As we knew, some people abused this idea and started to shoot everything really wide open, even landscapes... :-)

 

all your examples would perfectly work as a still alone, as there is still a relation between the figure and the background. After you have shown the complete scene, you could concentrate on the story, on the acting with a softer 4.0 or 5.6.  

[Wulf]

A wide shot can have shallow dof, but you will most likely have something out of focus in the foreground, and that's a problem with a wide shot.

 

my next lense is a tilf/shift

[Axel]

I just don't think you're noticing it because you're not looking for it while watching a well made film.

 

Jaws:

'>

 

Godfather:

'>

 

Look at the chair, it's already out of focus:

'>

 

The Good, The Bad and the Ugly was very specifically shot with deep dof, way more than usual.

 

Apocalypse Now (even the second character is blurring):

 

'>

 

Skyfall (Face shots are very often blurred up):

 

'>

 

Bladerunner (even Harrisons second eye is going out of focus here)

'>

 

Especially when shooting anamorphically s35 (which a lot of films do), you tend to get a very small dof area. It is absolutely an essential aesthetic. Have these new people just gotten used to smaller sensor cameras because where I'm from = larger sensor = larger oof area = more cinematic. There's a reason we used 35mm adapters in the golden days before DSLR's with every good looking independent film. You think people crave that speedbooster for nothing??

 

Saying that DOF isn't important is obviously coming from someone who hasn't shot much good looking stuff (knocking on wood)

 

Emblematic stills. All of them could (DoF-wise) be easily accomplished with a s35 size sensor (because they were, exceptions are some shots from Blade Runner, which was partly shot in 65mm). You think they would have been more cinematic with 5D and f1.4?

 

'The golden days' of 35mm adapters: Even without extreme sDoF, the old footage holds up well. That's imo because of the way the adapters created soft fall-off in the highlights (because of the rotating or oscillating ground glass) and subtly lifted the shadows. They made most images look three-dimensional because you subconsciously chose heavy backlight (difficult for naked digital sensors). And since they swallowed so much light, you were more conscious about lighting. As mentioned above, the low light capabilities of full frame sensors don't result in cinematic images (see A7S thread).

 

Far-fetched idea: Put a 'vintage' Letus like this in front of, say, a Pocket. Cumbersome setup, but if one didn't try to show off but just made a serious film with proper lighting, I bet this would beat any genuine full frame DSLR.

[Jonesy Jones]

hmcindie, good list and good examples. You're right, I hadn't noticed those, but that's because they are the exception, not the rule. When you look at cinema what sticks out to you is NOT shallow dof. And as Axel said, those shots could easily be achieved with an S35 sensor, even m43 for that matter.

 

As I suspected, this discussion of FF vs S35 seems to come down to dof, which again, is of almost no importance for me. I definitely think there's a time and place for it, and it is kinda nice having the option. But the microscopic dof achieved with FF is almost pointless imo. 

 

Also, I don't buy this claim that FF is different than S35 with speedbooster. A 35mm is 35mm however it is achieved.

 

Anyway, thanks for all your input everyone. It's been very educational.