FOV perception between photographers and cinematographers

[Damphousse]

Please let's leave real photographers out of this.  As someone who has been an amateur photographer for years I've never seen anyone in the photo community have any problems with sensor/film size.  Photography forums are not full of people arguing about FOV.  We all reference "full frame" 35mm and get on with our lives.  No photographer in their right mind would say, naw let's look at it from the perspective of APS-C or god forbbid micro 4/3.

 

Only Hollywood types seem to have this issue with using 35mm as the reference point and working from there.  I have everything in my photography bag APS-C, "full frame" 35mm and medium forumat.  And now I have the ludicriously small super 16 in the form of the BMPCC.  And of course I immediately got a speedbooster to bring it into line with what I usually work with and moved on with my life.  Super 16 definitely has an advantage when you want depth of field.  No one can argue about that.  But it also has an issue when you want to go wide... which is why I spent more than the cost fo the camera to get a Speedbooster.  Anyone that thinks that is insignificant or irrelevant is smoking crack.

 

And anyone that thinks DPs in the 40s, 50s, 60s, etc wouldn't have used full frame 35mm film if it was cost effective and practical is also smoking something pretty good.  Some choices were made for practical reasons.  That doesn't mean we should be stuck with them forever.

[MattH]

(formatting went weird, please ignore)

[MattH]

In relation to the original question:  I think if a person uses one system exclusively they will get used to what field of view a certain lens or focal length gives them.  That person has no need for knowing full frame equivalents or crop factors.   But for people that use different sensor sizes you have to have some way of knowing what you are going to get.
"Full frame" equivalent has become the standard way to do that.  I get peoples point when they reject the term full frame:  Using a system such as micro four thirds with a lens designed specifically for it is full frame in that context,  but this is just an issue of nomenclature.  Full frame or 35mm should really be called 135 format.

Why not use super 35mm as a standard?  well what is super 35mm really?  super 35 is 24.89mm wide and was only invented in 1984.  Until then academy 35 format was used which is 22mm wide.  I would argue that if any of these should be a standard if should be academy 35 as more classic films were shot in this format, although whether anamorphic was used adds a layer of complexity.  But why should we use these film standards when most cameras are APS-C which is 23.6mm wide?  But then we cant forget that canon APS-C is smaller than all the others at 22.2mm wide.   Even though their cinema line supposedly has a full super 35mm sensor.  Then there’s the cameras that say they have a super 35mm sensor but don’t.  Like the black magic production camera and the Ursa.  Which are actually 21.12mm wide: Not even academy 35 never mind super 35.  Micro four thirds is certainly no standard.  You get a different sized sensor depending on whether you have a multi aspect ratio sensor like on the gh2 or are using a crop in 4k mode on the GH4.

All this is just way too confusing.

135 format is the only one that stays the same with no variations and has multiple existing examples from different companies.  It’s always 36mm wide.
For that reason all crop factors relating to it have a fixed meaning.  So I think it is the sensible option as a standard for describing field of view.
There is nothing to stop people trying another way like using degrees, but you would have an uphill battle trying to get it established as a standard, and after all who really knows what 10 degrees field of view looks like.

So for you personally there isn't much of a problem, you have already associated a visual field of view with its 135 format focal length.   So you can think in that focal length, you then just work out the precise crop factor for the camera you are using and write down or remember which setting gives you which focal length.

I try to think in 135 equivalents even though I have never owned a 135 camera.

[jax_rox]

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.

The Alexa will be available in 65mm format. I'll be interested to see how many productions shoot on it..
 

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.

In terms of still photography, sure. But when it comes to cinema, you're using lenses that cost anywhere from $5k-$100k per lens (usually renting). Mostly, they're designed to cover S35mm as that's been the standard for a long time. Very few of the options are designed to cover larger sensors, many don't even cover the RED Dragon @ 6k! Slowly, newer lenses will start to be made with more coverage. Personally, if it's shoot on a 5D with Canon stills lenses and get a 'full frame' look or shoot RED or Alexa with Ultra Primes or Master Primes and 'end up with' a S35 look - I'm gonna go for the latter option (and have, many times).
 

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.

This is a creative question, and sure - if that's how you like to shoot that's fine. Personally, I'd rather ND and I tend to shoot no bigger than 2.0-2.8 when outside, as I don't generally like the look when we go shallower than that.
At night, I try to stop down a little as I think it looks much better when you have a bit of depth at night. Adds a bit of production value. Of course you need the lights to be able to do this.
 

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.

Yes. But then, what's the point of shooting full frame if you're going to close down to make it look like S35 anyway?
 
 

"Full frame" equivalent has become the standard way to do that.  I get peoples point when they reject the term full frame:  Using a system such as micro four thirds with a lens designed specifically for it is full frame in that context,  but this is just an issue of nomenclature.  Full frame or 35mm should really be called 135 format.

Why not use super 35mm as a standard?  well what is super 35mm really?  super 35 is 24.89mm wide and was only invented in 1984.  Until then academy 35 format was used which is 22mm wide.  I would argue that if any of these should be a standard if should be academy 35 as more classic films were shot in this format, although whether anamorphic was used adds a layer of complexity.  But why should we use these film standards when most cameras are APS-C which is 23.6mm wide?  But then we cant forget that canon APS-C is smaller than all the others at 22.2mm wide.   Even though their cinema line supposedly has a full super 35mm sensor.  Then there’s the cameras that say they have a super 35mm sensor but don’t.  Like the black magic production camera and the Ursa.  Which are actually 21.12mm wide: Not even academy 35 never mind super 35.  Micro four thirds is certainly no standard.  You get a different sized sensor depending on whether you have a multi aspect ratio sensor like on the gh2 or are using a crop in 4k mode on the GH4.

All this is just way too confusing.

All manufacturers have slightly different sizes for their 'Super 35mm' sensors. It's interesting and kinda odd, however none are extremely different (in terms of full frame vs S35). They're all very close to S35, and the slight difference in measurements is barely noticeable. S35 is also close in size to APS-C.

I used to think of S16 lenses as what I would get from S35 if I doubled the lens size - for example, when I put on a 12.5mm I knew I was getting something around a 25mm. A 25mm would get me a similar FOV to a 50mm, though with less DOF.

I have no issue with someone using a system to compare to what they know.

But there's also absolutely nothing wrong with using a smaller sensor size. We've been using S35 for years, and before that Academy 35. And we've been shooting on S16 for years! There are some absolutely beautiful films shot on S16, and many great commercials were. But you post on some of the forums on the internet and suddenly shooting on a Blackmagic Pocket is insane because the sensor is so small! We also had even smaller sensor for years in video cameras and were able to, in many cases, get beautiful images out of them.

I guess I don't really care for the 'snobbery' of sensor size. Use whatever sensor size you want. But a 'crop' sensor (it's not a cropped sensor, the camera still uses the whole image) is not bad simply because it's smaller. Full frame is not inherently better just because it's bigger. If that's the way you like to shoot then that's totally fine, but I and others may not like to shoot that way! And that's also totally fine. I'll judge you based on your work, not the sensor you use to shoot it on.

Some of us think that many films shot on full frame cameras are way too shallow for our liking, and may cause some to not get a full frame camera for that reason. And that's totally fine as well! On person's too shallow is another person's 'super cool' - just as one person's 'great lighting' is another person's over-lit. I personally own a full frame camera. But I won't be changing my shooting style because I've now got a bigger sensor. I will have to get my head around the differences in lens FOVs though.

[JazzBox]

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:

Yes, of course it is me! I love that movie, exactly because for me it is a great example of cinematography.  Joshua Caldwell made a great movie because he wrote a great story, he choose good actors, he made great compositions, great editing, great colors... and the DOF in his movie is always appropriate, it is never too shallow.

I'm sorry If I gave an answer a little bit too strong to hmcindie, but  I did not like the way he wrote me: I wrote something about the way MOST of the people (not all, obviously) use the full frame and I think that this way it is not very cinematic, it is simple too shallow for my taste and I can easily spot a 5D video when I see an extreme DOF, just that! 

It is the same when I see an exaggerate fisheye and I think: "it has to be a GoPro", because it is something very stylized.

Maybe it is good for something, but when I watch an Hollywood movie I can see the eyes of an actor, and probably also the ears. In a lot of music video made with the 5D I can just see one eye and not the second, because it's out of focus, like the ears.

But it has not that much to do with Canon 5D, it has to do with the shooter: with full frame you have to stop down the lens a little more then with APS-C. 
Of course great filmmaker do that and Joshua Caldwell did that, so his movie has a great photography. 

But a lot of people just don't do that: they know that 5D is a great low light camera, it has the possibility to give a shallow DOF and I think they became lazy about putting a light on the set and stopping down a little... maybe with A7s someone will start to make movies in absolute night without a single light, but it does not depend from the camera, it depends from a lazy choice of the shooter.

Of course there is not a perfect camera that fit all situations and 5D is nonetheless a great camera: 5D with Magic Lantern is probably one of the best image quality for a budget filmmaker, but a good movie come from a lot of things, not just from a low light monster or from an exaggerate DOF. 

Ciao :)
 

[leeys]

Please let's leave real photographers out of this.  As someone who has been an amateur photographer for years I've never seen anyone in the photo community have any problems with sensor/film size.  Photography forums are not full of people arguing about FOV.  We all reference "full frame" 35mm and get on with our lives.  No photographer in their right mind would say, naw let's look at it from the perspective of APS-C or god forbbid micro 4/3.

I think it's a good thing you're hanging out in the right places - the equivalence crowd and 35mm champions are freaking annoying.