Volker Schmidt Posted July 18, 2015 Share Posted July 18, 2015 I also think, it´s not a question of the depth of field in the classical sense of sharpness and blurring...In my opinion, the bigger sensor a priori brings a more three-dimensional capturing of the space.And yes, there are a lot of other amazing things going on in the trailer:)! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damphousse Posted July 18, 2015 Share Posted July 18, 2015 Ebrahim, you clearly like the camera. I can't argue with your opinion that the difference in quality shows even on this YouTube clip, because it's an opinion. But I don't think you supported it with anything factual other than saying that the large sensor makes it possible to shoot wide shoots with less distortion. I don't believe that's accurate. As I understand, differences in distortion come from lens design. With the same design, whether you use a small frame with a wide lens or a large frame with longer lens, as long as you get the same field of view you're going to have the same level of distortion. So, frame size plays no part other than letting you go wider with the same lens. I may be wrong though, please point to a credible source if I am.It's a lot more difficult to make a 17mm lens without distortion than it is to make a 50mm lens without distortion. As a BMPCC owner I made a beeline for a speedbooster. I looked at all the 8mm lenses and so forth and just decided to steer away from all those extreme wide angles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ebrahim Saadawi Posted July 19, 2015 Share Posted July 19, 2015 Ebrahim, you clearly like the camera. I can't argue with your opinion that the difference in quality shows even on this YouTube clip, because it's an opinion. But I don't think you supported it with anything factual other than saying that the large sensor makes it possible to shoot wide shoots with less distortion. I don't believe that's accurate. As I understand, differences in distortion come from lens design. With the same design, whether you use a small frame with a wide lens or a large frame with longer lens, as long as you get the same field of view you're going to have the same level of distortion. So, frame size plays no part other than letting you go wider with the same lens. I may be wrong though, please point to a credible source if I am.Sekhar the thing is, these Arri 65mm lenses only work on the 65mm sensor. Does this mean it's technically the lens performance that should take the credit? well technically yes, because t's possible to make an identical looking lens on a smaller FF sensor, but also no, because they don't make them. That's the paradox I was talking about earlier regarding the FF vs s35 importance.It goes something like this:-FF have a unique aesthetic,-N you can get the same aesthetic if you make an equivalent s35 lens, so it's the lens,-But no they don't make that lens for a smaller s35 sensor, so it's a FF aesthetic,-But no, it can be technically achieved as well on s35 if you make an equivalent lens so it has nothing to do with sensor size,-No because they don't make them,-But they do make some, so it totally not the sensor size, it can be done on s35 -Yes but only some, all the other lenses they don't make are unique FF aestheticand so on...It's a never ending discussion and that goes in circles around these two points forever if you read all FF vs S35 vs M43 sensor size topics on the forum history. Regarding 65mm Alexa, the image quality/look we're seeing and we're all admiring here is a combination of all factors, including the sensor creamy yet high resolution, DR, roll off, noise pattern, colourmitry, and the quality of the optics that are exclusive to that sensor, their distortion, resolving power, colour tone, lack of any fringing, abberations, bokeh, consistency, physical shape. A system as a whole. Plus of course the creative aspect of the piece that are separate from technical image quality... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonesy Jones Posted July 19, 2015 Share Posted July 19, 2015 Sekhar the thing is, these Arri 65mm lenses only work on the 65mm sensor. Does this mean it's technically the lens performance that should take the credit? well technically yes, because t's possible to make an identical looking lens on a smaller FF sensor, but also no, because they don't make them. That's the paradox I was talking about earlier regarding the FF vs s35 importance.It goes something like this:-FF have a unique aesthetic,-N you can get the same aesthetic if you make an equivalent s35 lens, so it's the lens,-But no they don't make that lens for a smaller s35 sensor, so it's a FF aesthetic,-But no, it can be technically achieved as well on s35 if you make an equivalent lens so it has nothing to do with sensor size,-No because they don't make them,-But they do make some, so it totally not the sensor size, it can be done on s35 -Yes but only some, all the other lenses they don't make are unique FF aestheticand so on...It's a never ending discussion and that goes in circles around these two points forever if you read all FF vs S35 vs M43 sensor size topics on the forum history. Regarding 65mm Alexa, the image quality/look we're seeing and we're all admiring here is a combination of all factors, including the sensor creamy yet high resolution, DR, roll off, noise pattern, colourmitry, and the quality of the optics that are exclusive to that sensor, their distortion, resolving power, colour tone, lack of any fringing, abberations, bokeh, consistency, physical shape. A system as a whole. Plus of course the creative aspect of the piece that are separate from technical image quality...Do you know of any focal length comparison videos where you see something like a 50mm on FF, 35mm on S35, 25mm on m4/3, maybe even down to the BMPCC. It doesn't have to be that focal length. In fact it would be great if there were several. This is something I've always wanted to try but I don't have all those cameras and lenses. People always talk about the FF aesthetic. Would be nice to see it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tosvus Posted July 19, 2015 Share Posted July 19, 2015 I must be missing something. The DoF does not seem very small to me in this trailer. At least that is one argument that something as spectacular as this trailer can show, that you don't need super thin DoF to make cinema.. Of course, larger sensors have other advantages, like low light gathering capability, which would be very useful in environments where light cannot be controlled. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmcindie Posted July 19, 2015 Share Posted July 19, 2015 It is about the wide, immersive feel of the whole image, particularly the dynamic range in how the shadows extend to the highlights gloriously, and how the extreme wide angles that show no distortion as they are 40-50mm-ish wide shots, something one can't get with other systems...Not even with CGI?I wonder what sensor size 3d-guys like to "use" inside their 3d softwares.I disagree that you can't get that wide angle look though. Slap a 20mm f1.8 onto the 5d, shoot it RAW and you will get close, atleast in the wide departments. You will even get a smaller DOF than many of those shots there. The most you will be missing is the highlight capability and resolution. But you will also get "character" with the shitty lens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunyata Posted July 19, 2015 Share Posted July 19, 2015 If you look at his photography you can see that he's able to achieve a very similar aesthetic with different cameras (according to nofilmschool and some digging he's mentioned using an iPhone 5 (LOL), Ricoh GR, and a Nikon D800, shooting with a 28mm or 24mm lens). https://instagram.com/chivexp/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonesy Jones Posted July 19, 2015 Share Posted July 19, 2015 I must be missing something. The DoF does not seem very small to me in this trailer. At least that is one argument that something as spectacular as this trailer can show, that you don't need super thin DoF to make cinema.. Of course, larger sensors have other advantages, like low light gathering capability, which would be very useful in environments where light cannot be controlled.If you're referring to my comment, I was being cynical... thus the . I posted that because it really drives me nuts how much I hear filmmakers talking about this lens or that camera and the shallow DOF capabilities. But when you look at actual cinema 98% of it has an extremely 'wide' DOF. And this trailer was an example of that. I thought it even more compelling to bring it up because of the large format of this camera. On another, only slightly related topic, people have mentioned that this camera and lenses don't have distortion. Watch the first shot of the trailer and keep your eye on the mountain on the right side of the frame. Looks like typical cinema distortion to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sekhar Posted July 19, 2015 Share Posted July 19, 2015 If you're referring to my comment, I was being cynical... thus the . I posted that because it really drives me nuts how much I hear filmmakers talking about this lens or that camera and the shallow DOF capabilities. But when you look at actual cinema 98% of it has an extremely 'wide' DOF. And this trailer was an example of that. I thought it even more compelling to bring it up because of the large format of this camera.j.f.r. had an interesting observation on this in an earlier thread. Basically, big budget folks are not going to blur out their $$$ sets and spectacular locations; whereas low budget indies have a lot to hide in most cases. Which probably explains part of indies' infatuation with super shallow DoF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonesy Jones Posted July 19, 2015 Share Posted July 19, 2015 j.f.r. had an interesting observation on this in an earlier thread. Basically, big budget folks are not going to blur out their $$$ sets and spectacular locations; whereas low budget indies have a lot to hide in most cases. Which probably explains part of indies' infatuation with super shallow DoF.That is a very good point. And using a shallow dof for those reasons is logical and reasonable. But doing that and then calling it more cinematic is not reasonable, and that is my point.I think another reason filmmakers like the shallow look is because it is instant gratification. Even myself, which I have grown tired of the overused shallow look, find myself gravitating towards it to spice up a boring shot, when the correct solution would be to reframe, relight, dress up the set, or a combo of all 3. Shallow DOF is just easier, but not the right solution many/most of the time. IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j.f.r. Posted July 19, 2015 Share Posted July 19, 2015 j.f.r. had an interesting observation on this in an earlier thread. Basically, big budget folks are not going to blur out their $$$ sets and spectacular locations; whereas low budget indies have a lot to hide in most cases. Which probably explains part of indies' infatuation with super shallow DoF.Buy this man a cigar.........Big Budget sets no need for such shallow DOF, unless done for an "artistic" reason. Shooting with no budget though in your backyard is another thing......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racer5 Posted July 19, 2015 Share Posted July 19, 2015 The images in this trailer are without flaw; massive amounts of detail, no clipping anywhere, perfect tonal transitions.And yet my emotional reaction to it is similar to having just watched a cutting edge video game cinematic. It feels like perfect technology on display. Pixel peeper porn. Someone mentioned HFR, and I get that vibe a bit too. Just my personal reaction; and yes I still understand Chivo is a genius, and this is the best camera ever, etc. Comparing it to the other large format event film this year, "The Hateful Eight"; this single frame that Bill Bennet tweeted (of Richardson's work, after a screening) just looks magnificent to me: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vaga Posted July 19, 2015 Share Posted July 19, 2015 It looks like a video game trailer to me in terms of visual aesthetic. Like assassin's creed trailers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.