Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

6k full frame vs 6k S35

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    The term, “Crop Factor” is a still camera DSLR marketing term from Canon and Nikon, nothing more, nothing less, coined to cover the difference between the new APS/C digital sensor cameras compared to the still photography standard 135mm film cameras. Back then it was Large format, Medium format, 135mm format, Half-Frame (Oly Pen F, which was what would become APS/C) and subcompact 16mm still Cameras (the famous “Spy Camera”). Not worth getting your nickers in a twist over.
    Cheers

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by VidShooter View Post
      And as far as Hollywood history I can think of no industry with as bad a track record for quality in the arts. Let's be honest 24p is BS. 24p is NOT an artistic decision. 24p came from the business office. Same with 16mm and super 35. So please just stop. If at the dawn of the movie industry the technology and money was around for everyone to shoot IMAX cameras at 30p that would have been the standard.
      I went to film school way back before digital took over the industry. In my film history class we were taught that 24FPS was the result of extensive testing back in the early 20th century. I can't recall names or times, but I do remember learning that before 24FPS, there was no standard. Films were primarily shot from 14FPS to 18FPS (yes, Wikipedia is full of BS claiming that silent films were primarily shot between 20FPS to 26FPS). A standard was required for the industry to be, well, an industry. After extensive testing with audiences, 24FPS was found to be the easiest on the eyes.

      If I google it, I find a completely different narrative, one about how 24FPS was chosen because it was the slowest frame rate possible while still being visually acceptable, thus saving money. I tried finding the origin of this particular narrative, and the earliest I can find comes from Peter Jackson back when he was trying to push 48FPS. Something he was heavily invested in.

      Truth is, films were once primarily being shot at less than 20FPS, the industry standard increased the FPS to 24 saving no one any money.

      Comment


      • #18
        Absolutely, early Cinema film development was pushed by those making the movies, Cinematographers and Directors, pushing the envelope as far as they could. We ended up with CinemaScope as an example. These early movie makers, would have cameras and part manufactured to specific requirements if they found they could not get what they wanted to create their movie. The bean doh tees had little to do with how movies were made. Studios would try to work to a budget but often the actual costs would exceed these limits. The movie industry was not entirely driven by profit (which was important as it paid the bills, more often driven by desire. The executives would screen what was being shot, based on how successful a given project may be, but the actual shooting was down to the crew involved.
        Cheers

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by John Brawley View Post
          this and super 16 sized images.....

          If you think crop factor is a thing, then you're not hip, you're not a trend setter, you're just ignorant.

          JB
          Kleenex, aspirin, Xerox.

          Get over it.

          Comment


          • #20
            I'm actually gonna wait for the vistavision 6k that is bound to be close on the horizon, not because I care to shoot on that format most of the time, but it is bound to have a 4k super35 crop which would be more than enough most of the time. I really hope they don't just leapfrog to 8k. If they stay in the same sensor family there are 6k and 8k versions, but the 6k seems to be the sweet spot for overall performance.

            As for super16, I really like that format and prefer using the original pocket as native super16 rather than using speedbooster to get closer to a super 35 look. It is a classic film format that is great for new filmmakers. At this point with 4k readily available, I view the original Pocket as an artistic choice, like shooting super8 or 16mm in a 35mm industry.

            Comment


            • #21
              Full frame has many advantages, but for a lot of people they are not important.

              1. A bigger sensor allows for shallower DoF. If you don't want shallower DoF, you can close down your aperture and get exactly the same image.
              2. A bigger sensor allows for cleaner images with less noise. But if you close down your aperture to keep DoF constant then you'll have to increase your ISO and this completely kills the noise advantage.
              3. There's a lot of great cheap glass for full frame, including Canon L primes, Sigma Art primes, etc, but also Leica-R or Nikon AIS vintage primes.
              4. A bigger sensor will give you a sharper image. Check this and this and this. If you're comparing the MTF results from the m43 Veydras to that of the FF Zeiss CP2 or Tokina Vista lenses, you have to compare the Veydra's 20 and 40 lp/mm lines with the FF 10 and 20 lp/mm lines. And, to keep DoF constant, you'd have to compare the Veydras at f/2 with the FF lenses at f/4 (that's the third link). It's not even close. They Veydras at f/2 have MTF of 0.5-0.8 at 40 lp/mm, compared with 0.8-0.9 for many FF cinema lenses at f/4 and 20 lp/mm. If you're using photography lenses, the results are very similar: here and here and here, and keep in mind those FF results are wide open.

              If you don't want your DoF to get shallower, 1 and 2 basically disappear.
              If you already have glass you like and it's S35 glass, then 3 also disappears. In my case, I have a very nice set of vintage Leica-R primes, which is a great reason for wanting a FF sensor. But in terms of modern glass I'm absolutely in love with the Sigma 16mm f/1.4 and 56mm f/1.4 APS-C lenses, which, for stills, have completely killed my lust for FF. If I can get something like an a6400 but with IBIS and shooting 14-bit RAW 4k 60fps video with awesome eye-detect AF, then I'm selling my Leica-R set. And I said IF but it's certainly WHEN, the future is coming, fast. Give it another three or four years, maybe.
              So you're left with 4, and then you find yourself trying to diffuse and soften the image to make it pleasing because our sensors have way too much resolution...
              Last edited by Samuel H; 08-28-2019, 01:18 AM.
              My YouTube channel

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by VidShooter View Post
                Oh, boy! Your comment about movies produced on small sensor cameras is a nice bit of perspective. Although, as was pointed out, you did leave out the whole 3 sensor thing and the fact they were CCDs.
                Interesting.

                Heres what i said.

                Originally posted by John Brawley View Post

                Hurt Locker
                Slumdog Millionaire
                Avatar
                Hurt Locker was Super 16 film (and some occasional very high speed video)

                Slumdog Millionaire was mostly SI-2K...a 2/3" CMOS sensor

                Avatar was shot F23, a three CCD senor camera.

                What was your outrage about again ?

                Originally posted by VidShooter View Post
                As far as the crop factor thing I don't know where to begin. I have news for you the majority of photographers who ever lived never spoke about crop factors.
                That IS my point. Exactly.

                We're cinematographers who don't have a history using a format that photographers have been using for 100 years. It's the same.

                Crop factors are bringing the perspective of someone that has come up through photography. Not cinematography.

                And by the way, cinematographers have been using multiple formats for years too and never needed to use crop factors. Super 8, 16mm, 35mm, camera 65, IMAX etc. Some how we didn't need crop factors to work out what was what.

                There are many cinematographers who have not come up through photography. Whilst they are related, there are plenty of important times they're very different.

                Crop factor discussions always generate more confusion than their proponents purport that they save.

                Many times I see crop factors being used without taking into account aspect ratio. How many films have been shot full frame again ? Oh wait, practically NONE because no-one hardly ever in video shoots 3:2 135 format as an aspect ratio do they ?

                Yet there's a slavish obsession of comparing crop factors of lenses to a format that no one ever shoots in video. It's only relevant if you're come from a 135 format background and that's how you need to understand the lens field of views that you're using.

                Yet the crop factor of a format that has very little filmmaking history and that is misleading many new to cinematography into an inference of inferiority, is often premised based on an aspect ratio that's never used on a format that's hardly ever used. I mean great, you understand crop factors. More don't than do I'd wager and so why is it a good tool to use again ?

                Why are we using a camera format that has no history in cinema as the new gold standard for lenses ?

                It's obviously too late because everyone already does, but that's my point. It's not really a standard that has much relevance to cinematographers and mostly confuses everyone that tries to explain how simple it is.





                Originally posted by VidShooter View Post


                And as far as Hollywood history I can think of no industry with as bad a track record for quality in the arts. Let's be honest 24p is BS. 24p is NOT an artistic decision. 24p came from the business office. Same with 16mm and super 35. So please just stop.
                I think you're incorrect here. Typically there was a lot of variation in frame rates. Most early cranked cameras shot 8 or 9 frames per revolution and most tried to go at two revolutions per second, but it was highly variable.

                The threshold of the perception of continuous motion is measurable. As witnessed by many filmmakers that have tried forcing HFR onto an Audience, most people reject it wholey for narrative drama as well when it's a lot higher than 24. 24p was the de facto minimum speed that allowed for the bandwidth required for early sound, but that wasn't a choice for that to be the standard. There were many different speed (and format) options being tried.I'm not sure how you get to accountants making that choice. It just evolved into that.



                Originally posted by VidShooter View Post
                You know what I think is snobbery? Someone dressing up an accounting decision as "high art".

                Originally posted by VidShooter View Post
                We all remember that tale of Doctor Who. They started shooting a lot of that show on video tape. It looks terrible. But to add insult to injury the pencil pushers told them to overwrite the video cassettes to save money.

                Not really. More just that the BBC engineering department didn't have a policy or mindset for keeping material. They were not an archive. They were engineers. They deleted many shows, not just Dr Who usually because they didn't have the rights to the material (actors rights weren't available) and they had no policy of archival needs or curation. It's easy look from now and see that they had value, but many many films have also been junked and lost for the same reasons.

                I was once working at GTV9, a Tv station in melbourne that first went to air during the Melbourne Olympics in 1956. Shooting a comedy sketch one day for a GTV 9 show the actors had all of this film wrapped around them. My boss at the time looked at the film and suddenly started grabbing all the "prop" film everyone was playing with and stepping on and carefully winding it back onto the reels. We went back and he confirmed, it was the only kinescope of the first night of transmission of GTV9. The only copy of the opening night of transmission of the highest rating Melbourne TV station.

                This was in the early 90's. He cleaned it up, retransfered the film and gave it back to them with a video copy. A few years later he saved it for the second time when they started dumping their film archives into landfill in their new carpark. I was down there with him and we had a van and we were trying to salvage as much as we could, from the days when news was shot on film.

                It's not pencil pushers ordering people to throw things out as you infer.There weren't people trying to save episodes of Dr Who that were ordered to destroy episodes. It's company policy and apathy to not recognise the worth of something until it's sometimes too late, or because the rights had expired to them so they could no longer be legally aired.


                Originally posted by VidShooter View Post
                The industry is going to 6k+ s35+. What we think of it doesn't matter.
                Maybe. I think yes, higher resolution, because it's easy to do and it sells cameras.

                Larger sensors are harder because the lens options are realistically still few and far between, and bring other logistical issues in regular use. Still lenses are still a kludge when adaptored for cinema use. I think those options will exist and grow, but S35 isn't going anywhere soon. Just like 1920 ProRes is still the most common drama origination format despite everyone thinks is happening in the world of TV drama.

                JB

                Comment


                • #23
                  I shoot commercials and 'photography full frame' sensors can make sense for that. For narrative projects though, S35 / S16mm are much much better formats imo.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by John Brawley View Post
                    Crop factor discussions always generate more confusion than their proponents purport that they save. JB
                    Oh how many times people on set want to talk about sensors and crop factors with me. I never do, just a waste of time and energy.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by stip View Post
                      Oh how many times people on set want to talk about sensors and crop factors with me. I never do, just a waste of time and energy.
                      Yep. Exactly. It's never a part of my practice, but there is so much talk and angst about it.

                      JB

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by stip View Post
                        I shoot commercials and 'photography full frame' sensors can make sense for that. For narrative projects though, S35 / S16mm are much much better formats imo.
                        Well I know many are framing for IG spots now, so 3:2 135 format starts to make sense for that market !

                        JB

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Instagram story ads are 9:16 ratio which looks great on your phone but framing and editing feels so weird lol

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by GeranSimpson View Post
                            Instagram story ads are 9:16 ratio which looks great on your phone but framing and editing feels so weird lol
                            Yeah.

                            And then they just reframe your work anyway. Like this....

                            https://www.facebook.com/4kira4moms/...6317689574572/

                            Or this (same show)

                            https://vimeo.com/342578070

                            JB

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              haha. Mankind is by far the strangest creature on earth

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Looks like the wheels are coming off.
                                Some people don't know how to talk to other people.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X