FOV perception between photographers and cinematographers

[mtheory]

After so many years of full-frame photography I still find it so difficult to think in terms of classic cinematic FOVs because of 5D...I mean the framing that I instinctively know to be 50mm is really what....70mm in cinema? Or alternatively, when I see a cinema frame that looks 35mm to my mind...I have to remember that the lens was actually 25mm. This drives me mad. Really trying hard to retrain my brain from using full frame mm's when assessing FOV....anyone else have this problem? :)

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

To get a normal 50mm look you use something around a 35mm. And to get the lovely 35mm look you use a 24mm.

I have the same problem. It's confusing to use different sensor sizes. My favourite lens and field of view is the 35mm F1.4 Canon L on full frame, what a lovely look for shooting people. But now I just need to find a 24mm F/0.9 APS-C lens to get the same look, and a 35mm f/0.75 to get the 50mm f/1.2 look, and 50mm f/0.75 for the 85mm f/1.2. Other than these crazy fast lenses any full frame look can be replicated by using a 1.5x wider and faster lens.

Also remember that if you shoot on a mirrorless you can just add a speedbooster and get the fullframe 5D standard.

And hey full frame video beasts are recently flodding the market, the 5D mk III, 1Dx, 1DC, the D750, the D810, the A7s, A7 mk II, and all the mirrorless APS-C camera when coupled with a Speedbooster (A6000, A5100, FS100, FS700, FS7, etc). And if you don't mind aliasing the Sony A7 can be bought used for 800$, a great full frame video look.

[Mozim]

Well it seems like what matters is what you started out with in first place, right? 

 

I started out shooting pictures and video on an APS-C sensor, so that's sort of what I'm used to. In the meantime I also picked up an MFT-camera, so that's a 2x crop factor compared to full frame or a 1.3x crop compared to what I'm used to. What matters to me though is that I prefer the feel of the larger sensor. When I export stills from some of my video projects, I always use frames shot with my MFT camera because the resolution and quality are much better. But once things are moving, I almost always prefer the look of the APS-C camera. A 50mm lens on my APS-C camera feels right to me. A 50mm lens on my MFT camera feels great, too, but I always wish that I'd be able to have a larger frame. The difference between sensor sizes becomes somewhat redundant when talking about telephoto lenses and it'll be very hard to spot the difference between the different sensor sizes. But the more I'm shooting with different sensor sizes, the more I'm convinced that larger sensors look better to my eyes. There's a certain 3D pop that's very hard to achieve with a smaller sensor, especially when shooting between 20mm and 100mm (full frame equivalent). 

 

 

 

 

 

[Mozim]

To get a normal 50mm look you use something around a 35mm. And to get the lovely 35mm look you use a 24mm.

I have the same problem. It's confusing to use different sensor sizes. My favourite lens and field of view is the 35mm F1.4 Canon L on full frame, what a lovely look for shooting people. But now I just need to find a 24mm F/0.9 APS-C lens to get the same look...

 

This might make me sound like a beginner but anyways... 

 

Would a 24mm (well, 21.8mm to be exact) f/0.9 APS-C lens give you the exact same look and feel as a 35mm f/1.4 lens on a full frame sensor? 

 

Or let's say you have a magic camera with two sensors, one full frame and one APS-C, and you mount the two lenses right next to each other so they're virtually in the same position. 

 

The framing will be almost exactly the same, you get a slightly faster f-stop on the APS-C camera so that compensates for the better ISO performance on the full frame sensor. But will it look exactly the same? From what I understood so far is that the background gets pulled in a bit more on the full frame camera because after all, a 35mm lens is a 35mm lens and a 24mm lens is a 24mm lens. So while the framing itself will be equal (X and Y axis), the depth of the image (Z axis) will be different and the full frame camera will give more of a 3D look, right? 

 

I know this has been discussed numerous times, so please let me know if I'm wrong. 

[andy lee]

if you want to shoot some thing that looks like it has Hollywood movie 'field of views' just remember these 3 focal lengths

 

27mm for your wides

75mm for the close ups

40mm for the rest of the coverage

 

all referanced to a 35mm motion picture camera or APSC or Micro 4/3 with a speedbooster

you can shoot most of your movie on these 3 lenses - or use a 28-70mm zoom that covers almost them all (NIKON!!!)

 

shoot at f2.8 - and off you go .......all else is irrelevant cross referancing to full frame and will just slow you down

 

I ignore full frame totally as I just dont like the look of it.

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

This might make me sound like a beginner but anyways...

It's not a beginner question it's a very confusing and highly debated subject. From my experience and physics yes, a 24mm F0.9 on APS-C will give the exact same look as a 35mm f1.4 on full frame. Look here means the field of view and depth of field. There are many different factors that affect the matter, like simple differences between lenses' quality, the 24mm 0.9 might be of lower quality than a 50mm 1.4, or vice versa, one might be softer, has different contrast, viggiting, chromatic abberations, etc. And also the variable of sensors, the sensors can be different in noise performance, in colour science, in resolution, in dynamic range, etc, so these all affect the "look".

But yes eliminating the variables, like say by using the same sensor (an A7s in full frame and the same camera in APS-C mode), and by using the same lens natively and using it with a speedbooster, (a speed booster turns the 35mm 1.4 full frame lens to a 24mm 0.9 lens), you will get the exact same image in both modes (Full frame with a 35mm lens at 1.4 vs a S35 with a 24mm 0.9). With identical field of view AND depth of field.

Some people argue that depth of field is a characteristic of the lens and optics and has nothing to do with the sensor behind it, but no, sensor size affects the camera-to-subject distance, which directly affects the depth if field, because DOF is determined by the Aperture width, the focal length, and the distance. A smaller sensor forces you to go back farther to get the same fov (increase distance), so you focus more towards infinity and get a deeper depth of field.

[JazzBox]

I ignore full frame totally as I just dont like the look of it.

100% agree with you! 

5D MkII and MkIII look is so "videoish"! Hollywood has a shallow depth of field, but not an extreme, unusable depth of field! And a lot of movies just haven't!

[utsira]

I just wish there were more decent APS-C cameras. Or rather, there's lots of decent ones (I've been enjoying the A6000 for a couple of months now), but nothing outstanding for mirrorless video. The best "APS-C" cameras are in fact full-frame cameras in crop mode, or m43 cameras with a speed booster. Come on Sony, give us an A7000S. With internal 4K. And 5 axis IBIS. The Samsung NX1 is definitely intriguing though

[Nikkor]

The normal lens is 40mm.

[jax_rox]

Funny, I came the other way. From motion picture 35mm. Now I have an A7s and it baffles me when I put a lens on!

 

Every now and then when I used to shoot with a 5D, I would get so confused. I'd ask my crew to mount up a 50mm, and it just wouldn't be a 50mm!

 

It made it difficult for me to get longer shots. I'm generally quite happy with the S35mm/APS-C sensor size, and most cinema lens sets are put together based around that. I rarely shoot around f/1.2 as I think that super shallow, razor-thin DOF is a by-product of cheap SLR filmmaking, and people thinking that the shallowest DOF possible is what makes something cinematic. 

 

Of course, I have shot WFO (even on Superspeeds at T1.3!) but it depends on what I'm shooting. I'm happier around T/2.0-t/2.8, but have shot many scenes throughout my career at t/4.0, t/5.6...

I find having the shallowest DOF humanly possible is terribly offputting.

[leeys]

Even for stills, I find extreme shallow DoF not always useful. Maybe because I'm so used to m4/3 and APS, but when I review FF cameras I'm always struggling for more DoF, not less. Using f/1.4 lenses are a nightmare at times.

[jax_rox]

. 

[hmcindie]

This might make me sound like a beginner but anyways... 

 

Would a 24mm (well, 21.8mm to be exact) f/0.9 APS-C lens give you the exact same look and feel as a 35mm f/1.4 lens on a full frame sensor? 

 

 

Yes, they would look 100% the same (considering that both lenses would have the same distortion characteristics)

 

The problem is that it's quite difficult to find those same lenses at the same prices. To get that look is easier with a 5d/a7/d800 and photography lenses than an s35mm sensor and cinemalenses because those cost big bucks compared.

[hmcindie]

100% agree with you! 

5D MkII and MkIII look is so "videoish"! Hollywood has a shallow depth of field, but not an extreme, unusable depth of field! And a lot of movies just haven't!

 

Hollywood also has loads of budget and crews, are you gonna try to replicate them in everything you do, or do it your own way?

 

Besides, a 50mm f1.2 isn't even that extreme of DoF or am I just a crazy good focus puller? I get it that with film it's crazy but nowadays we can see so easily what we are shooting and where the focus is with focus assist monitors that it isn't even that difficult or crazy.

 

I've been doing Brenizer style photoshoots to even get mooore blurry blurs than the 200mm f2.8 gives me with the 5d so you can always have a bigger sensor. Complaints like that always sound to me like someone just saw a shitty homevideo with the 5d (completely ignoring all the shitty homevideos with m4/3 sensors) and then thinking the shittyness is because of the dof.

 

Are you gonna throw your dolly in the bin if you see a shortfilm with nothing but shitty dollyshots?

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

They are all different looks for different tastes.

I am sorry for the following rant, it's long and a little bitter, and it's not adressed to a certain member or person really at all.

But I am growing very tired of the ongoing pretentious internet talk about how shallow depth of field is amateurish and that hollywood is shot at 5.6 on APS-C and that Pros shoot stopped down and homevideos are shot wide open. I mean what in the name of God do you mean by such a childish thought?!

Has it ever occured to to them that we're not all trying to exactly replicate the hollywood movies specifically shot on super 35mm film? Has it ever occured to them that some of us are trying to make films that look BETTER than hollywood and set a new standard?

One of the main reason hollywood films were not shot at these large formats and shallow depth of field is because they didn't have access to such large formats, the lenses were not fast enough and the Vistavision/60-70mm film were prohibitively expensive and unavailable. Yet many hollywood movies are shot on anamorphic lenses which basically gives the full frame effect, a shallower depth of field and larger image format and many shot on 65mm for the exact same reasons, it's an aesthetic choice that even greatest hollywood DP's made sometimes when they had the choice, not amateurish.

I strongly believe that what looks "good" is what my audience think looks good. I don't have the right to shape their taste or command they like the hollywood standard more than a new one.

Full frame came out and the viewer fell absolutely in love with it, and if hollywood had access to that image they would have used it and it would have became standarized. (That's just something I claim though not a fact.)

Almost all of my audience LOVE the full frame look, the shallow depth of field at wide angle vistas, the amazing flattering close ups of faces and overall otherworldly aesthetic of the image. They absolutely love it more than APC-S.

If the public decide they like this new large format aesthetic more than the s35 hollywood one, who are we to take that right? They have the right to choose and watch what they want.

As long as my audience and clients prefer the full frame look I will utilise full frame vs. S35. And vice versa, if my clients prefer the s35 look I'll definitely use that!

There's only one matter in the entire living that has no right or wrong, it's beauty and aesthetics.

It's solely determined by the amount of population's opinion about it.

And that's exactly what I will choose, what the people like.

If hollywood directors set a standard I want to set one too for future generations to replicate and admire, life never stops!

Rant Off.

[JazzBox]

Hollywood also has loads of budget and crews, are you gonna try to replicate them in everything you do, or do it your own way?

 

Besides, a 50mm f1.2 isn't even that extreme of DoF or am I just a crazy good focus puller? I get it that with film it's crazy but nowadays we can see so easily what we are shooting and where the focus is with focus assist monitors that it isn't even that difficult or crazy.

 

I've been doing Brenizer style photoshoots to even get mooore blurry blurs than the 200mm f2.8 gives me with the 5d so you can always have a bigger sensor. Complaints like that always sound to me like someone just saw a shitty homevideo with the 5d (completely ignoring all the shitty homevideos with m4/3 sensors) and then thinking the shittyness is because of the dof.

 

Are you gonna throw your dolly in the bin if you see a shortfilm with nothing but shitty dollyshots?

Hey, I'm talking about "look", not certanly difficult of pulling focus.

I simply don't like the extreme  - unusable for my humble taste, and for the most of Hollywood big boys - look of a razor shallow DOF, because is something that clearly come from a  5D (or from a generic FF camera). 

Cinema is 99% made with Super 35, so what's your point? I don't like to use words like "shitty", but I can easily spot a "shitty" 5D VIDEO LOOK from 10 miles. 

And m43 looks more cinematic because the sensor's dimensions are a lot closer to Super 35 than Full Frame. In cinema the supershallow does not exist. 

I don't try to replicate anything, I just saw a lot of movies and, i.e. "Dallas Buyers Club" is shot handheld (no tripod, no crane, no slider), with just practical lights and a minimal crew in just 25 days. 

Is it "cinematic" or is it "shitty"? 

A super shallow DOF it's not automatically "cinema": it is often an alibi to be a lazy cinematographer. 

I think that "cinema" is a little more than shallow DOF. Just that! :)

[Cosimo murgolo]

Hey, I'm talking about "look", not certanly difficult of pulling focus.

I simply don't like the extreme  - unusable for my humble taste, and for the most of Hollywood big boys - look of a razor shallow DOF, because is something that clearly come from a  5D (or from a generic FF camera). 

Cinema is 99% made with Super 35, so what's your point? I don't like to use words like "shitty", but I can easily spot a "shitty" 5D VIDEO LOOK from 10 miles. 

And m43 looks more cinematic because the sensor's dimensions are a lot closer to Super 35 than Full Frame. In cinema the supershallow does not exist. 

I don't try to replicate anything, I just saw a lot of movies and, i.e. "Dallas Buyers Club" is shot handheld (no tripod, no crane, no slider), with just practical lights and a minimal crew in just 25 days. 

Is it "cinematic" or is it "shitty"? 

A super shallow DOF it's not automatically "cinema": it is often an alibi to be a lazy cinematographer. 

I think that "cinema" is a little more than shallow DOF. Just that! :)

what about this? this was your thread, right? 

'?do=embed' frameborder='0' data-embedContent>>

was this videoish too? a bit of respect :D come on!!!! I  own the bloody 5D, I wish I never did now, after all this, I like cinematic look.

I got it all wrong then! :angry:

Hang on a minute, but I use anamorphic adapters, that should give me more cinematic look :rolleyes:

Am i right? I am settled, I don't need to buy another camera, maybe. :huh:

[jax_rox]

A 50mm f1.2 isn't even that extreme of DoF or am I just a crazy good focus puller? I get it that with film it's crazy but nowadays we can see so easily what we are shooting and where the focus is with focus assist monitors that it isn't even that difficult or crazy.
 
I've been doing Brenizer style photoshoots to even get mooore blurry blurs than the 200mm f2.8 gives me with the 5d so you can always have a bigger sensor. Complaints like that always sound to me like someone just saw a shitty homevideo with the 5d (completely ignoring all the shitty homevideos with m4/3 sensors) and then thinking the shittyness is because of the dof.
 
Are you gonna throw your dolly in the bin if you see a shortfilm with nothing but shitty dollyshots?

Of course - I've shot at T1.3. I personally think that it's less about the focus pulling (I've worked with some awesome focus pullers, though it is not easy to pull focus WFO even with the latest monitoring options) and more about the look in general. As always, the look needs to support the story. If that means shooting WFO, then that's totally justified.
 
Shooting WFO because you think 'that's what Hollywood films looks like' is a different story - of course, I'm not saying you, in particular, do this, just as a general statement.
 
And yes, if I was unhappy with the performance of a certain dolly, I would not use it on my films. 
 
 

I am growing very tired of the ongoing pretentious internet talk about how shallow depth of field is amateurish and that hollywood is shot at 5.6 on APS-C and that Pros shoot stopped down and homevideos are shot wide open. I mean what in the name of God do you mean by such a childish thought?!

Has it ever occured to to them that we're not all trying to exactly replicate the hollywood movies specifically shot on super 35mm film? Has it ever occured to them that some of us are trying to make films that look BETTER than hollywood and set a new standard?

One of the main reason hollywood films were not shot at these large formats and shallow depth of field is because they didn't have access to such large formats, the lenses were not fast enough and the Vistavision/60-70mm film were prohibitively expensive and unavailable. Yet many hollywood movies are shot on anamorphic lenses which basically gives the full frame effect, a shallower depth of field and larger image format and many shot on 65mm for the exact same reasons, it's an aesthetic choice that even greatest hollywood DP's made sometimes when they had the choice, not amateurish

Let's be clear - there were fast lenses for a long time. I think the current trend for shallower DOF comes down to being able to shoot on faster stocks/higher ISOs. In the past, you may have had a fast lens, but as a general rule you were shooting with large lights that gave a huge amount of illumination. You can ND and dim as much as you want, but you're still going to end up shooting around a 4.

There's nothing inherently wrong with shooting wide open - many films have done it and have done so for many, many years. A lot of the night scenes in Social Network were shot without lights at T1.3 (Master Primes).

I think it would be a silly assertion to say that Hollywood films are shot at 5.6 and home movies are shot wide open. Neither of those statements are all that factual. However, I think it's also interesting to assert that shooting wide open, without lights is a way to 'set a new standard' and create images that look better than Hollywood (to paraphrase). Of course, this is not an attack on you at all, or anyone, simply a discussion of the points being made.

Everything we're talking about here - anamorphic, shooting wide open, shooting stopped down... all has a different look, and each one is totally viable and entirely acceptable as long as it supports the story.
It's when I hear that someone's shooting wide open because 'that's what Hollywood does' or 'that's what Hollywood movies look like' is when I start to take issue.

Full frame came out and the viewer fell absolutely in love with it, and if hollywood had access to that image they would have used it and it would have became standarized. (That's just something I claim though not a fact.)

You make big claims - I would posit that most audiences have no f*n clue that full frame looks different. Indeed, the difference in final look is negligible, apart from slightly more Depth of Field for the same field of view. Most audiences don't notice until something is totally out of focus. I would also suggest that Hollywood has had access to larger formats (65mm film, for example). There's a lot of limitations, however, when it comes to a larger sensor or film frame (lack of good cinema lenses being a major one), and at least in the comparison of APS-C to Full Frame, the difference in look is negligible.

As long as my audience and clients prefer the full frame look I will utilise full frame vs. S35. And vice versa, if my clients prefer the s35 look I'll definitely use that!

Well realistically, that's all that should matter - if the client likes it better, who are you/we to tell them they're wrong!
 
 
 

A super shallow DOF it's not automatically "cinema": it is often an alibi to be a lazy cinematographer. 

I think that "cinema" is a little more than shallow DOF. Just that! :)

I agree with this point. Too often it seems this razor-thin DOF has been employed to hide the DP's shortcomings in not being able to light a whole set, or the shortcomings of the Production Designer not being able to design the set properly, or in general a lack of budget so that they could not afford a Production Designer to design the set, or lights for the DP.
It can be a bit of a cop-out. I've shot at T1.3 on S35 and not had as shallow DOF as a lot of the 5D stuff I've seen.
You lose so much depth shooting like that, and it can feel unnatural. However, it depends on the story - if I was given a script that I felt needed to be shot that way, I would certainly do it.

[richg101]

the tiresome debate.  Often the complaints from people saying full frame is too shallow is from those who don;t use such a camera.

 

If the Alexa were available as a full frame version I can almost guarantee most who swear by s35mm would soon switch to the bigger sensor.    you need to spend £600-1000 on a lens for s35mm to match the look of a basic £50-100 35mm f2.8 on full frame.  Going cheaper and at the required 25mm f2 needs to be used wide open and it's gonna be soft from edge to edge.

 

You need wide and fast lenses if you want to separate visual information using dof creatively - particularly when outdoors.  The bigger the scene, the bigger the frame that's required.    

 

 

It's not that full frame is shallower than s35mm.  It's that for the same focal length you get a wider fov.  if it's too shallow, close the aperture down and you get better optical performance and deeper dof.  Nowadays with clean 1600-6400iso on full frame sensors closing down to f5.6 isnt a problem.  

 

But onto the subject of the original post, I think one should get to know both formats before deciding.  a stills photographer turned motion photographer should stick with full frame since it's what they know.

 

Those saying that full frame looks videoish due to the dof are using the wrong reference material to make their judgement.  It's easy to stick a 50mmf1.4 on a 5d and shoot indoors for a single eye being in focus.  Put the same setup outdoors and it's ability to separate a subject from its background is very hard to achieve with a smaller frame  

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

Yes it's easy to remember you can get the s35 look with a full frame sensor just by stopping down the lens, but not vice versa as you can't open up lenses beyond their maximum aperture to match the full frame look. With full frame you have more options and that's it. You have more control of how shallow or deep you want to go, rathe than being restricted to a maximum limit. Plus it's almost always cheaper to go wider and shallower on full frame.

All things being equal I think having as large of a format is better. I would kill to shoot something, anything on that new 65mm Alexa with 70mm medium format lenses.