Thread: 6k full frame vs 6k S35

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 50
  1. #11  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    444
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Loblaw View Post
    The entire film The Curious Case of Benjamin Button was shot on a 2/3” sensor, which has a 4X crop.
    This is true, but let’s clarify why studios chose these cameras when 35mm was still king. They typically had 3 separate sensors for each color channel and recorded un-baked color data with huge bit depths. Color is king, not resolution or sensor size. Those old cameras still capture way more color detail at 14 bit depth per sensor than most cameras now that record 12 bit raw from one sensor.

    Remember that a single 4K sensor still has to divide the pixels by 3 for each color channel.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #12  
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    3,110
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Loblaw View Post
    The entire film The Curious Case of Benjamin Button was shot on a 2/3” sensor, which has a 4X crop.
    this and super 16 sized images.....

    Hurt Locker
    Slumdog Millionaire
    Avatar

    All oscar winners...

    And many others.

    Crop factor is the most misunderstood concept and I see this constantly being referenced in idiotic ways. As soon as you point this out to anyone you generally get called an OLD MAN or elitist.

    Of course, Full Frame, or as I like to call it FOOL frame doesn't really exist in cinema until the 5D MK2.

    And it's only in the last 2 years we've had access to "REAL" digital cinema cameras that shoot full frame, or what should be correctly called, the 135 format or vistavision.

    Full frame actually has very little history in cinema. Very very few of the films anyone can care to name are shot using this aspect ratio and image size (Aside from some VFX plates in older films)

    I'm shooting my next series with Alexa 65. If the 135 format is called FULL FRAME, then what is ALexa 65...? More full-er frame ?

    Calling it full frame just tells everyone you're new to cinematography and you came up shooting dslr cameras instead of cinema cameras.

    Call it snobbery if you're so insecure to think that calling things by their correct name is elitist and old fashioned, but it's really not full frame unless you're a photographer trying to work out which lenses will cover your sensor.

    Somehow cinematographers survived for more than a century without every referring to crop factors. Some of the greatest images ever created where in total ignorance of it's crop factor.

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

    JB
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by John Brawley View Post
    this and super 16 sized images.....

    Hurt Locker
    Slumdog Millionaire
    Avatar

    All oscar winners...

    And many others.

    Crop factor is the most misunderstood concept and I see this constantly being referenced in idiotic ways. As soon as you point this out to anyone you generally get called an OLD MAN or elitist.

    Of course, Full Frame, or as I like to call it FOOL frame doesn't really exist in cinema until the 5D MK2.

    And it's only in the last 2 years we've had access to "REAL" digital cinema cameras that shoot full frame, or what should be correctly called, the 135 format or vistavision.

    Full frame actually has very little history in cinema. Very very few of the films anyone can care to name are shot using this aspect ratio and image size (Aside from some VFX plates in older films)

    I'm shooting my next series with Alexa 65. If the 135 format is called FULL FRAME, then what is ALexa 65...? More full-er frame ?

    Calling it full frame just tells everyone you're new to cinematography and you came up shooting dslr cameras instead of cinema cameras.

    Call it snobbery if you're so insecure to think that calling things by their correct name is elitist and old fashioned, but it's really not full frame unless you're a photographer trying to work out which lenses will cover your sensor.

    Somehow cinematographers survived for more than a century without every referring to crop factors. Some of the greatest images ever created where in total ignorance of it's crop factor.

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

    JB
    Thanks for taking the time to stop by and share your wisdom and knowledge of history John. Its an honor. I agree with your sentiment that vistavision (full frame) did not exist until it did. Its kind of like electric cars, at one time they did not exist, but love them or hate them they are here now. And it is being marketed as "full frame" by the companies that make them. One good outcome of using "full fame" is there will be less confusion over "Will this full frame lens work on my vistavision sensor?" Regardless, I am with you, I like "vistavision" better, it just sounds more epic! However, for sake of communication I do not mind using both. Crop factor is a thing until it isn't. Once a person understands how crop factors work and how it relates to lens choices then they are no longer ignorant. I provided some links in this thread that can help bring understanding to some of these issues. Do you have some better articles/ videos that you could add? The 60 members viewing may not be interested, but the 2,000 guest who are looking on may find it helpful. Thanks again.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #14  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    644
    I was considering the F6, but apparantly they increased the price by 500 euro on cvp, makes the pocket 6k a much better choice...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #15  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    385
    Quote Originally Posted by John Brawley View Post
    this and super 16 sized images.....

    Hurt Locker
    Slumdog Millionaire
    Avatar

    All oscar winners...

    And many others.

    Crop factor is the most misunderstood concept and I see this constantly being referenced in idiotic ways. As soon as you point this out to anyone you generally get called an OLD MAN or elitist.

    Of course, Full Frame, or as I like to call it FOOL frame doesn't really exist in cinema until the 5D MK2.

    And it's only in the last 2 years we've had access to "REAL" digital cinema cameras that shoot full frame, or what should be correctly called, the 135 format or vistavision.

    Full frame actually has very little history in cinema. Very very few of the films anyone can care to name are shot using this aspect ratio and image size (Aside from some VFX plates in older films)

    I'm shooting my next series with Alexa 65. If the 135 format is called FULL FRAME, then what is ALexa 65...? More full-er frame ?

    Calling it full frame just tells everyone you're new to cinematography and you came up shooting dslr cameras instead of cinema cameras.

    Call it snobbery if you're so insecure to think that calling things by their correct name is elitist and old fashioned, but it's really not full frame unless you're a photographer trying to work out which lenses will cover your sensor.

    Somehow cinematographers survived for more than a century without every referring to crop factors. Some of the greatest images ever created where in total ignorance of it's crop factor.

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

    JB


    Quote Originally Posted by John Brawley View Post
    Full frame actually has very little history in cinema. Very very few of the films anyone can care to name are shot using this aspect ratio and image size (Aside from some VFX plates in older films)

    I'm shooting my next series with Alexa 65. If the 135 format is called FULL FRAME, then what is ALexa 65...? More full-er frame ?

    Calling it full frame just tells everyone you're new to cinematography and you came up shooting dslr cameras instead of cinema cameras.

    Call it snobbery if you're so insecure to think that calling things by their correct name is elitist and old fashioned, but it's really not full frame unless you're a photographer trying to work out which lenses will cover your sensor.

    Somehow cinematographers survived for more than a century without every referring to crop factors. Some of the greatest images ever created where in total ignorance of it's crop factor.
    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.

    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. To them a camera was a 35mm camera. Even when pros were using medium format cameras and large format cameras the majority of the people were basically ignorant of their existence. They snapped away in complete ignorant bliss. With the advent of digital though a bunch of smaller sensors started to appear and there had to be a reference to what most people were used to. And there are far more photographers than videographers.

    The funny thing is no serious professional photographer has every complained about the term "full frame". I shoot medium format and using "full frame" as a reference point is not a problem. For the first several years I was in photography I never even heard the term "full frame" because I didn't shoot digital. When I came across it in an article it took a total of about 3 minutes for me to get the whole "full frame" thing. Years later videographers still can't figure it out?!

    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.

    You know what I think is snobbery? Someone dressing up an accounting decision as "high art".

    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. And the "artists" did it! There are whole chunks of Doctor Who that are lost forever. A world wide search has been on for years trying to locate various professional and ametuer copies of the episodes. They found a cache of tapes at some Nigerian TV station. Seriously this is the thought process you want to follow? This is not art. This is the worst kind of short sighted accounting.

    And I know you are out there making good art. I know you are out there using the best tools. I respect the fact you won't adulterate the light path with a speedbooster. I use one but I understand and respect people who don't. I don't have anything against 16mm either. I use a BMPCC. But it isn't an "artistic" decision. It was just what I could afford at the time.

    Let's all just be honest with each other. All these formats exist because of accounting and convenience. Otherwise we would all be shooting IMAX cameras.

    And my point from my original post is it doesn't even matter. The industry is going to 6k+ s35+. What we think of it doesn't matter.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #16  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    USA N. CA
    Posts
    3,202
    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
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #17  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    285
    Quote 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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #18  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    USA N. CA
    Posts
    3,202
    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
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #19  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    201
    Quote 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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #20  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    972
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. 6k full frame?
    By dop16mm in forum Footage / Frames
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-15-2019, 12:46 PM
  2. Speedbooster for the UMpro: Full frame to to S35
    By Timothy Cook in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 09-20-2017, 05:11 PM
  3. Sigma's new full frame 24-35mm f/2 DG HSM Art Lens
    By DangerMouse in forum Lens Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-22-2015, 04:56 PM
  4. The BMCC 4K 35mm sensor is not full frame?
    By Robert Bentley in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 06-10-2013, 12:09 AM
  5. “Full Frame Equivalence” and Why It Doesn’t Matter
    By Simon Shasha in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-02-2013, 11:34 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •