Thought this was going to be far more confusing than it really was. That was a lot of background info but delivered in a clear, concise way. Thanks for the lesson!

Learned a whole bunch. Thanks.

Great video. Really clear explanation. I don't know how it doesn't have millions of views. Well, you got one more.

I have 2 Canon C70's with RF 15-35, 24-70 and 70-200. I bought a Meike FF35mm. Waiting on the Canon adapter for EF glass. I feel like I can cover just about everything now. Great video!!

Thanks for this. Enormously helpful. But, let me say, in my view, the best thing about full frame is that it has tended to push down the prices of S35 cameras and compatible lenses, as some buyers opt for the new, new thing.

@Nomadwriter546

2 жыл бұрын

1000% this. The proliferation of full frame allowed me to get a canon c100 for far less than it was going for a year before i had bought it

@federicodecuadro5672

Жыл бұрын

It also has driven the legacy glass market of still film cameras through the roof

@Tonellacam

Жыл бұрын

Yes ! I’m so pumped that I can buy a super 35 for half the price because of the full frame hysteria right now !

Thank you very much for the clear explanation of the difference between 35 vs Super 35 sensor!

GREAT video, very informative and easy to understand.

Subscribed. Thank you for this!

Can you please tell us, how did you do the wireless video transmission on your SmllHD monitor? Thank you for the great video.

thanx for this.. very basic but helpful.

3:37 have yet to see that so called amazing content by the masses created with full frame sensors tbh

Thanks fir this great vid! Using an R3 as a sports still camera but because of its video capabilities I am learning cine. I am enjoying motion and movie making so much, I should have started much earlier in my career!

Good one, i like how you went into actual camera models and kept is casual too.

This is amazing! We’re upgrading to a c70 from the R6 where we used the sigma 24 1.4 art as well! Does it pair well with the C70 also?

Great job explaining

So say I had a lens set where 4 of the lenses were super 35 and 2 were FF. I am in film school and we have an Amira and an Alexa LF in our inventory but the Amira is Super 35 and the Alexa LF is FF, so what camera would you think would be best to choose in regards to the lens set?

Never new how the S35 size had come about, but now I know!

Great video but you got your history a little backwards. Filmmakers didn’t get their hands on stills film it was actually the other way around. Perforated 35mm movie film was invented (or maybe more accurately “first cut down to size”) in 1889 but Thomas Edison’s assistant William Kennedy Dickson for use in the Kinetoscope and quickly became a standard. It should be noted that “Roundhay Garden Scene”, considered by many to be the first motion picture, only came out a year earlier in 1888 so 35mm has been around pretty much as long as movies have. In the early 20th Century still photographers started using 35mm cine film for stills but ran it through the camera horizontally instead of vertically. The format became so popular for still photography that Kodak introduced the 35mm cartridge system in 1935 which is essentially what we still used today.

thanx very much for your video. you tested s35 lens on a ff body. what's the consequence of using a ff lens on a s35 body? "only" the crop, right? i have a c70, it's ok to buy cine ff lenses right? i only have to count with the crop factor.

Fantastic video

3:10 - "Full frame" but cropped to 1.78, not 3:2, right?

Your video truely helped me make my desicions on which camera I will be buying. Thanks for that!

@Tonellacam

Жыл бұрын

Which one did you go with ?

What prime lenses were those you used for test? 6:35

Could you please recommend a servo zoom lens for 5D Mark IV?

what model is that wireless external monitor used with the fx3?

I'm wondering the difference between the vignette background you show at 8 minutes 23 which camera you use to produce the visual with with all the background noticeable

Was a great video both sensor sizes have their pros and cons, personally y prefer the s35 cause is most accurate to film, if that is what you’re looking for, but in my personal opinion a s16 sensor can produce a very pleasing images using the right lens choice. After all is not about sensor sizes is about what fits in your workflow, style and the aesthetic that your are looking for.

thanks so much!

Thanks a lot!

what is that a mount sony cinema camera?

Worth mentioning... Full frame performs better in low light due to the larger sensor, Also provides more dynamic range capture, Which is why dark scenes in modern movies are much darker yet still have the dynamic range to provide a good image

my camera is Panasonic lumix s 1 h ,do you surject a zoom lens for it ?

understood. thanks

Great video

So basically, i can use my full frame lenses on a ZV-E1 for example, which I’m considering, and simply deal with a slight crop factor, similar to APS-c? Is super 35 closer to APS-C or Full frame?

@GustavoOio

11 ай бұрын

Yes! So, Full frame has 36x24mm Sensor, Super 35 has 24.9x18.7mm, while APS-C has 23.60x15.60mm, (Canon APS-C has 22.20x14.80mm) so Super 35 Sensor is closer to APS-C than Full Frame!

If i''m understanding correctly then, shouldn't the B roll at 2:33 have the film vertical to illustrate S35mm?

@bighands69

Жыл бұрын

There is a mistake here unless it is horizontal film movement that is for Vistavision. The problem as well is that super 35 uses the full width of film right out to the perf on the roll so it is a super wide image but is not tall.

And then ARRI release the top of the line Alex35 on May 31 2022, and it uses a Super35 Sensor. This just shows that the sensor size isn't that important, and many of the statements regarding the bigger sensor size leading to more pleasing compressed image are frankly bogus. If one needs to understand why, then read my other post talking about the differences.

@Frontigenics

2 жыл бұрын

But format size IS STILL important if you want a certain look. The Alexa35 looks great... but if I were choosing any camera for a production I would STILL pick the Alexa65. The dynamic range is still insane on the Alexa65 and the Large-Format Look is preferable than any advantage the new Alexa35 has. Anytime I watch something and think "woah, this looks EXTRA visually immersive for some reason" I look up the camera and it's always Large-Format. "leading to more pleasing compressed image are frankly bogus" It's actually the opposite, wide lenses lead to an effectively more compressed z-axis when using standard framing/composition. And no, it's not bogus. A 30mm lens used to get a medium shot on s35 format looks WAY DIFFERENT than using an 85mm to get the same shot on an Imax camera. (this to a slightly lesser effect on Full-Frame). Trying to argue that these shots have no optical difference is lunacy.

@billyoung9538

2 жыл бұрын

@@Frontigenics that is a myth. The only real advantage that large format offers over Super35 is shallow depth of field in certain situations, but Super35 has greater reach at an equivalent resolution. Both of these are situational. One of the main reasons people shifted to the Alexa65 was because it was the first 4k Alexa, but now the Alexa35 is also 4k and it offers greater dynamic range and color fidelity. If both used an otherwise identical sensor the larger format sensor would have better overall light gathering potential, but all other differences come down to the lenses. The greatest impact on how something looks is going to be the team behind the footage. If one likes the look of a specific movie then I suggest looking at who the DP was and look for more of their work.

@billyoung9538

2 жыл бұрын

@@Frontigenics with regards to a 30mm on a Super35 senor looking very different than a 85mm on 135(Full Frame) I would certainly hope so, because they do not have an equivalent field of view. An 85mm on a 135 sensor would be roughly the equivalent of a 57mm lens on a Super35 sensor so long as it was a 1.5x "crop." A 30mm on a Super35 sensor would be the equivalent of a 45mm lens on a 135 (Full Frame) sensor. Let's try and keep our lens field of view comparisons equivalent before making absurd claims they are not.

@bighands69

Жыл бұрын

Super 35 and full frame digital are all nonsense.

Ha! I never thought about S35's width beiong the height of full frame. But then, why do you hold the film strip horizontaly in front of the sensor and not vertically? That's not correct, is it?

It's worth noting that when you focus in on the centre of a lens, it blows up all the defects of that lens. Having a good, expensive lens becomes much more relevant on smaller sensors as you will be zooming in on all the chromatic aberrations, sharpness fall off, flaring etc.

Nice color matching between cams

5:36 Ouch! I was just gonna ask you about what are some cine lenses out there covers full frame sensors. What are some vista vison cine lenses that can go back to back between FF to S35? One other thing is, somehow canon has focal reducer for ef lens giving its full frame look. Is it mechanically possible to have similar adapter for RF lenses on S35 cameras regaining full frame field of view? Thought C70, Komodo sorts of S35 sensor body with RF mount not taking full advantage of RF lenses was quite disappointing.

@lensprotogo

2 жыл бұрын

Excellent question: I'd recommend the Sigma cine primes, all of which offer full-frame coverage, have a wonderful look, size, and price point. Similarly the Canon CN-E primes also offer full-frame coverage. Also, very interesting observation! I am tempted to say this varies from lens to lens

@VariTimo

2 жыл бұрын

@@lensprotogo You can use the Sigmas if you want your stuff to look like high end KZread videos.

@aov_james

2 жыл бұрын

@@lensprotogo Thank you whole bunch!! read a rumor with rf CNE lens coming up. That might be a great option :)

@aov_james

2 жыл бұрын

@@VariTimo Sigma! thanks I'll check em out

@flyingfox2005

Жыл бұрын

A focal reducer doesn't give the "full frame look". If you mount a 50mm lens using a 0.71 focal reducer, it creates a new wider focal length (35mm) and one that is a whole stop faster. So a 50mm lens (which is the standard lens for FF / 135) has become a 35mm lens (standard lens for S35). It's impossible to create a focal reducer for RF lenses (to use on a RF camera) due to the flange distance. You are simply not using the entire image circle when you mount a lens designed to cover FF / 135 - as the S35 sensor is smaller than FF / 135, that's is all... but then many lenses designed for S35 actually have image circles that cover FF / 135, so this isn't a huge issue. You simply need to change your lens usage... so instead of a 50mm being your standard lens, you use a 35mm. If you're used to an 18mm lens on FF / 135 being your "wide", you need to buy a 12mm for S35.

The super35 has a clean background feels just right depth

Great video.Its 2024. ll research more. I just bought a Canon C300PL new and thought that it was a better choice for digitial film on the cheap (cost $600 without lens). I may have thought it as a super 35 was better than full frame. But i am a novice so I will research more.

Can't find the answer to this question any where so I'll ask here. Say you were using an f/2.8 lens on a super 35 sensor, and an f/4 lens on a full frame sensor.. would you expect to have similiar DOF/Bokeh at equivalent focal lengths?

@kaysionglim2725

2 ай бұрын

Yes. If the same distance of subject to sensor remains the same, divide the f-stop of lens by the crop factor of Super 35 of 1.46. f4÷1.46= f2.74. Pretty close sir.

What about data rates for each? Some people on KZread seem to think that Super 35 is better looking than Full Frame. What is with that?

I have owned a FX3 for just over 7 months. I have professional friends, who I occasionally work with. I to have noticed, two changes to their behavior, The use of Auto focus, from guys who have manual focused for most of their working life. and the insistence of frame rates of 60. by foreign TV companies. This has encouraged me to now shoot a lot in 50fps ( I am in the UK and use Pal ) With modern file formats such as XAVC-HS and reduction of rolling shutter, films seem to have lost the jitter effect. Other advantages of high frame rates are, higher shutter speeds, giving video captures better quality. I would like your thoughts on my comments?

@TechnoBabble

2 жыл бұрын

"Higher shutter speeds, giving video captures a better quality". I honestly have no clue what you mean. Are you saying that each frame being "sharper" when in motion is "better quality"? Because in most situations increasing your shutter speed and framerate means less light for each frame, giving you lower image quality.

@alanwillis5509

2 жыл бұрын

@@TechnoBabble A film is a number of J pegs in a sequence. If a jpeg is captured at 50 fps and a shutter speed of 1/100. it will be sharper than 25 fps at 1/50.

@TechnoBabble

Жыл бұрын

@@alanwillis5509 sharpness in a single frame of video has little to do with image quality.

Get explanation. Just bought the R5C. Was wondering why it had Super 35 and Super 16 as options in the Sensor Mode 😂

Whats your opinion on using full frame lenses on s35 cameras? For example using the 24-70 2.8 sigma art on a fs7? It makes it a 35-105 which is nice in my opinion.

@flyingfox2005

Жыл бұрын

24-70mm on S35 is a 24-70mm - focal length doesn't change on smaller sensors... what changes is angle of view, which is narrower.

@zKMotion

Жыл бұрын

​@@flyingfox2005 if it's with a speedbooster, it changes to wider. However, with just an adapter, it's still 24-70mm F/2.8

@flyingfox2005

Жыл бұрын

@@zKMotion that's what I said... a focal reducer changes the optics, making a lens 0.64 or 0.71 So a 24mm on a 0.71 focal reducer becomes a 17mm and gains a stop. The 24-70 on the FS7 is NOT a 35-105, that is the full frame myth that conflates focal length with AOV on a FF / 135 sensor camera.

@zKMotion

Жыл бұрын

@@flyingfox2005 yeah, just re-saying so no confusion. Lots of people get confused by this haha.

@flyingfox2005

Жыл бұрын

@@zKMotion totally and it's sad as once you "get it" it all becomes very easy. I always wonder how many people have bought the wrong camera, or wrong lens because of this confusion. "The lens you use to achieve a specific angle of view changes... the focal length always stays the same on any sensor size - UNLESS an additional optical element is used."

What about low light capabilities? Isn't having a full frame sensor better?

@flyingfox2005

2 жыл бұрын

"Some" not all FF sensors can improve low light capabilities, or like the Arri LF or Alexa65 have smaller perceived noise as a large area of the same sensor is used.

@vinoneil

2 жыл бұрын

Not necessarily. The Super35 sensor on the Canon C100 performs better (less noise) in low light at higher ISOs than my Sony a7iii which has a full frame sensor. I think it more comes down to the quality of the sensor, and the size of the photosites.

@TechnoBabble

2 жыл бұрын

@@vinoneil As well as the processing. Sony's mirrorless cameras often use aggressive temporal denoising, allowing them to have very clean video in the mid-range of ISO settings, but at high ISOs can hurt quality.

shoutout da boys from massachusetts

In what world, you put full frame lens on s35 camera?

ah, that's why shot most of the cinemaphotographer with the alexa LF in s35 mode ; -)

I’m shooting on an S1H and an S5 right now.

@divisionoflabor3070

2 жыл бұрын

I'm on an s1

VistaVision(full frame) was adopted by cinema not because of the wider field of view or different focal lengths. It used more of the surface area of the 35mm film frame to reduce grain in the projected image. Film stocks were very noisy(heavy grain) and studios and audiences wanted a better image. If you put a 35mm lens on a super 35mm camera and then put the same lens on a LF(Full Frame) the bokeh and depth of field will be the same. Only the field of view will be wider on the LF Camera. You can match the field of view with a wider lens, a 35mm wide s35 would match the field of view of a 52 mm LF lens. But the depth of focus is a stop deeper with the s35 lens. You gain in the amount of light captured with a FF lens but you give it right back with loss of depth of field. S35 lenses generally go a stop lower than FF lenses, so any increased sensitivity of FF is equaled out by lens performance. Moving the camera closer to the subject is not a good solution. That introduces geometric distortion to an image. Objects closer to the lens will appear much larger. (notice how large the subject's nose appears and the deformity of the face in the closer imaged shot kzread.info/dash/bejne/mIyTtpt8Ybeec9Y.html). This distortion is the result of distance to subject and will appear the same at any focal length. Shorter focal lengths will just allow you to see more of the subject. If you want to match the "Full Frame" look just open up the aperture one stop and shoot at a stop lower ISO(or double the shutter speed or add one stop of ND)

@bighands69

Жыл бұрын

They reduced that grain by increasing optical resolution so that they could make the image space smaller but still have a larger than standard 35mm film picture at the theater. On the screen it increased resolution from the standard 35mm film of 8k to that of 12k in vistavision. That meant they could show less of the image detail but keep the image large and as such the audience would not see as much of the grain on screen.

There is a bit of misinformation in this video. Any difference in compression when using the two different formats is going to come down to 3 things. First and most importantly lens design, and by this I mean how the lenses inside the overall lens are shaped and positioned relative to one another, because while the basic edge to edge field of view will stay the same the elements within the field of view will get shifted spatially in the composition. All one needs to do to see this is compare two lenses with a difference lens design of the same focal length and multiple objects in the shot at very different depth distances, often just a different lens manufacture is enough to see these types of shifts, but using a prime vs a zoom can also do it. Secondly the aperture for the super35 sensor must be widened by roughly 2/3 to 1 stop. This will increase the over all light hitting a super35 sensor producing a brighter image, but have the same bokeh size. As a side note a Focal Reducer used on a super35 sensor will give close to this exact result, but requires lenses with a larger image circle (full frame) to gather the additional light, but this brings us to the third difference. The ideal focal length for the least amount of aberrations is going to be different due to the aperture differences. Basically the super 35 with an identical lens and a focal reducer will hit a lenses aperture sweet spot roughly 2/3 to 1 relative stops wider than the same lens on a full frame, because of the same optics differences in point 2. What does this mean as far as which is better? Little to nothing. Why? Because cinematography is about telling a story, and the only real advantage to a full frame gives is the ability to get a shallower depth of field in tighter situations when the field of view and aperture are identical, but this can actually be detrimental in some situations, because the point of blurring is to focus the viewers attention in a story, and it often doesn't have to be blurred much in order to pull of this effect. Blurring to much, which can happen easier with full frame, can actually disorient the viewer if things are so blurry that they loose track of background visual reference points when one shifts the cameras point of view. There one other aspect of this that should also be addressed, and that is cost. Full Frame, 135, large format/vista vision cinema lenses are exceptionally more expensive than their super35 counterparts, and if story telling is ones goal then in most situations full frame doesn't actually add much in most situations.

@patrickmeyer2802

2 жыл бұрын

Which is exactly why Arri, the industry leader in cinema cameras, just announced essentially the best sensor for video, ever, and it's S35.

@Frontigenics

2 жыл бұрын

@@patrickmeyer2802 but it's not going to "look" like full-frame or large format. I still prefer the Alexa LF because of the Large-Format look.

@TechnoBabble

2 жыл бұрын

@@Frontigenics I can 100% guarantee you that I could show you 4 photos of the same subject shot on different sensor sizes and you wouldn't be able to tell the different.

@billyoung9538

5 ай бұрын

​@@Frontigenics There is no "look" difference out side of photo-sites, color science and lens differences. Note none of these are the physical sensor size. Any look difference is 99% going to be the physical lens design more than anything else. IF a lens manufacture were able to successfully scale all aspects of the lens to function identically on the smaller sensor, then under almost all shooting scenarios they would look virtually identical other than photo-site size & color science, and that would effect noise, base color & diffraction to a degree at extreme apertures. IF graded properly and people asked to choose which they preferred the result would be roughly 50% aka random. Any belief that the sensor size it self has something to do with it, after the lenses are made equivalent is purely psychosomatic. With that said If there is no equivalent lens then it's possible you prefer the look of a given lens on the larger sensor, but again that is an issue of the lens design, and as that will effect element positioning in a composition is a valid reason to choose; however, there are far more great super35 lenses than there are 135 format lenses currently. So one is likely going to be able to find a better looking lens on super35.

@Frontigenics

5 ай бұрын

@@billyoung9538 Uhhh-- then why does stuff shot on FF or IMAX look way different? Look at specifically the opening of Tenet, or that show Umbrella Academy... it looks and feels WAY different than s35. I've even had friends and "normies" ask why certain shows "look so different" and to no surprise, they're always talking about something shot on larger format. It's a look you can't get otherwise. Even without knowing what camera it was shot on (cause there isn't much info at the moment) go watch that new Alex Garland "Civil War" trailer. You can EASILY tell it's either Full-Frame or Alexa 65. You can spot it from a mile away. Now, I'm not making any claims that it's "superior"... but it is a look unto itself. Some things look great in s16... some things look great in FF or IMAX. Depends what you're going for.

Another cool thing to show people would've been spacers. Essentially by adding this spacer to your Full frame camera and then attaching the super 35 glass to the spacer you effectively widen the area that the light makes contact with the sensor in the camera so that you can use your in-house super 35 lenses with the capability of using your full-frame sensor. It does come with drawbacks though. It can soften the overall image, however, it is a decent alternative, especially if you're looking for a slightly softer image and want to use super 35 glass.

Very insightful 🙂💯 Though, I thought in a full frame film, the visual is captured horizontally while the same film is used in Super 35 to capture visuals vertically. Also, during the focal length conversion aren't we considering the aperture? For instance f2.8 35 mm full frame lens on super 35 might not be the same as f2.8 50 mm full frame lens on a full frame sensor, perhaps f3.5/f4 might match the scene (with some adjustments in lighting conditions) No? This condition isn't the same if we're using lens designed for specific sensors, however 😎 Cheers from Bangalore, India

@Runge100

11 ай бұрын

A apeture doesn't changes wheter it's on one format or the other, and 2,8 or 5,6 is always the same regardless format..

@Prabhath_the_Dawn

11 ай бұрын

@@Runge100 Thanks for your response. I guess my understanding was wrong earlier😇

The historical reason for the difference between full frame (still cameras) and Super 35 (motion picture film cameras) is that the film was wound in long lengths on spools and transported vertically through the film gate (where the negative was exposed). This kept the cameras smaller, (or at least slimmer) than they would have been if the film was transported horizontally. Film projectors also transported the film horizontally and the entire filmmaking industry was set up for horizontal transport of film. With sensors, it makes no difference since there's no reel of film to transport.

@wxjunkie

27 күн бұрын

Ok

Tengo una Gran duda: yo tengo una Sony a7Rii y graba excelente en 4k - 30 FPS super 35 ósea recortando el sensor a tamaño APSC y no hay nada de ruido en tomas nocturnas. Por que los fabricantes no implementan esto en cámaras APSC si el tamaño del sensor es el mismo a super 35. Mi Sony a7rii OLD es mucho mejor que la FX30 en tomas nocturnas. Los fabricantes capan los sensores APSC para que emitan un ruido escandaloso en baja luz. Pero si es Fullframe y aplicas el super 35 ahí si le quitan el ruido. Muy sospechoso.

Ahhh man, very informative but longer focal lengths do not “compress space”, moving the camera and compensating for that move with a longer focal length compressed space. Longer focal lengths equal shallower depth of field no matter what system you are using but full frame sensors give more scope to use longer lenses for coverage usually captured on a wide focal length on S35 and below

@Frontigenics

2 жыл бұрын

yes, they do EFFECTIVLY compress space... but it's the opposite... wide lenses compress the z-axis. Just take a look at many of these youtube videos that shows a persons face at different focal lengths... are you going to tell me that doesn't exist?

@TechnoBabble

2 жыл бұрын

@@Frontigenics different focal length shot at different distances, the distance is causing the change in compression. If you took all of the shots from the same distance and cropped the wider ones in to match the framing of the longer lenses you will notice that the compression is the same.

@Frontigenics

2 жыл бұрын

@@TechnoBabble Sure, but you're using differnt lenses at different distances to get the same framing... that's why I call it "effective compression". You're arguing from the the point of 'normalizing for distance'... but that's not how people use lenses when they change formats.

I had a canon 24 105 and happily bought a BMD Studio 6K EF pro mount. The images are tight…. 😢

So basically one looks closer than the other at the same distance is what I got from that. So distance when recording is the dividing factor

Full Frame isn't the standard it's APS-C/S35 for both video and photos. For professionals, Full Frame is preferred, but APS-C sells and generates profits far greater than Full Frame by a significant margin.

Smiiiile....

You forgot to mention the increased low light capabilities of full frame sensors

Great video! I like how you made a point to mention the difference in image compression. So many people just focus on “shallow DOF” when talking about full-frame vs s35... but the image-compression is actually what creates the “full-frame look”. Lenses look totally different at similar FOVs between the formats. I definitely prefer the FF or 65mm look.

@imiy

2 жыл бұрын

So 35mm on S35 will look differently than 50mm on FF? Not talking about slight FOV here.

@TechnoBabble

2 жыл бұрын

"Compression" is not a real thing in the way you're describing it. It's all just talk, no objective test has ever been able to show it. A 50mm lens on Super35 with a 1.5x crop compared to full frame will have the same "compression" as a 75mm lens on full frame. They have the same angle of view and you would frame your subject from the same distance, therefore the same compression is achieved.

@Frontigenics

2 жыл бұрын

@@TechnoBabble I think you're being deliberately misleading... you know that when people talk about "compression" in photography or cinematography they're taking about EFFECTIVE compression. When you frame up the SAME COMPOSITION with a 35mm Lens on s35 vs 50mm Lens on FF shot the s35 is going to appear to have EFFECTLY more compression than the Full-Frame counterpart. It's EASY to tell when something is shot on Imax for the exact same reason. Framing normal Medium -Shots with an 85mm lens looks WAY different than using a 25mm or 30mm lens on a smaller format.

@TechnoBabble

2 жыл бұрын

@@Frontigenics this is completely wrong. I get it, it's a common thing people say, but it's all nonsense. The physics of how lenses works disagrees with you 100%, compression is only changed by your distance to the subject. Using different lenses to achieve the same field of view and framing up the same shot will give you the same compression. There are literally tests online showing that there's no difference. Whereas your claim has never been proven in any way, because it's not a real thing.

@Frontigenics

2 жыл бұрын

​@@TechnoBabble Again, it's not about "physics in a lab" it's about how people actually SHOOT and frame things on different formats. When you watch something like Ozark, you can EASILY see that Season 4 was shot on large format. It's looks WAY different and even "normies" who know nothing about cinematography notice the difference.

A7c

FullFrame varies slightly from 1 camera manufacturer to another

That's an amazing video - even considering your generally high standards! A ton of useful information, rushed through. No apologies for going back - the ideas of what a great cinematic look should be like depends very much on your experience of watching films. My expectations being a teenager and young adult with experimental 1960ies and 70ies movies and probably many more CinemaScope films than any of you young people is totally different from somebody spending much time in these high frequency / high speed video games. You ask what kind of gear your audience uses - for my music videos I try to avoid movements needing focus adjustments - easy for those who play there instrument sitting on a chair anyway. So all the mf/af issues are mostly avoided. I hate these high definition shots which make make-up and editing necessary, so people end up with most unnatural faces. Accordingly 720p HD is just right for me, mostly in b/w. For this i love my Nikon D7000 which also offers 24frame per minute shooting, not so common on older consumer cameras. I must say, that's about the only use where th D7000 shines. As lenses it's mostly Nikkor D-glass with its moderate retro looks, not the impersonal perfection of modern glass for still shooters. I am not totally against more modern gear, actually ordered a Nikon Z5 and also own Sony ff and APSc bodies and a range of LUMIXs for size, video features and the awesome IBIS already in a model like the G85. For the Z5 the serious limitations in 4k are of no concern - it is supposed to be class leading in full HD. i would love to have the Z6 Mk 1 for the information panel on the top and the use of more quality metal on the body, if only it matched the price of the Z5

i know this isnt the video theme but you look attractive 😅

Very interesting, but your conclusion is not true for FX3, I mean you forgot to mention a SUPER IMPORTANT AND I THINK a GREAT FOGGY COMUNICATION BY SONY that FX3 doesn't have super 35 crop or ASP-c in 4k but only 2k and this doesn't give people the freedom to choose super 35 lens... I think is a big point less to FX3! for me that I'm looking for new camera means that I'm switching to Pana SH1 that gives me both possibilIties in 4k. I think that Sony should put this point gigantic on their site before people with super 35 lenses buy it....but they don't indicate it clear... I had a response from them from customer service to confirm it.

This video has nothing but personal opinion not based on reality. Cinema cameras are going to keep employing s35mm as their main format for sensor size, with a few full frame to go along. But make no mistake, s35mm is still the baseline for the cinema world.

@OlegUstimenko

2 жыл бұрын

yeah, even history wise this doesnt seem very correct, considering 35mm motion picture film came before 135 still film.

@Frontigenics

2 жыл бұрын

How is this personal opinion? Do you not understand how optics works? Everything said in this video is FACT.

@leebrandt8597

2 жыл бұрын

@@Frontigenics Because, he thinks that full frame sensors will dominate the cinema camera world, and that's not true. That's his personal opinion only. S35mm sensors will continue to be the majority format in cinema, and that is a FACT.

@TechnoBabble

2 жыл бұрын

@@Frontigenics What's fact? The best sensor ever created for video, in terms of dynamic range and colour, is still Super35. Sensor sizes do not change the "compression" of the image. Should I keep going?

@Frontigenics

2 жыл бұрын

@@TechnoBabble nope, they DO EFFECTIVLY compress video when you actually account for how people shoot and frame shots. Using a 25-35mm for a medium s35 shot looks much different from using a 50-60mm for the same SHOT/FRAMING on Full-Frame... and both of these look WAY DIFFERNT than using an 85mm lens for the same Medium-Shot on Imax camera. You can CLEARLY see the difference. It's very easy to tell something was shot on a larger format. In my experience, even regular audiences can tell there's something "epic" or "cool" about Large-Format cinematography. Stop pretending that it doesn't exist.

RED wins definetly. Full frame is good for photography only.

The biggest issue with using Full Frame is depth of field. No serious cinematographer or studio is wasting there time with Full Frame It's not like they didn't know all this for 100yrs. This goes for professional broadcast sports, news, and movies. DOF 🤦🏾‍♂️ you're literally willing to lose quality to shoot on an 8k (tiny photosites) sensor just to crop into S35 when you literally could plan and shoot correctly the first time then whatever shots you need for editing shoot in higher resolution beyond 2.5k Our literal eyeballs can't see past 4k and those that can are in the 0.000000000001% you'd need to be less than 5in from a smartphone screen or foot from a 40" monitor and hope your eyes focus and hope your eyes can also see the angle of view which it won't. The math has been done for years. Going Full Frame in KZread world makes sense but it's honestly terrible content when you get down to it b/c you guys rely on AF and don't realize the small focus shifts. If KZreadrs really want better quality they'd use MFT or S35. Photographers benefit from Full Frame or bigger. Shooting video bigger also introduces more problems like rolling shutter, bigger files and higher production cost for 0 practical gain. Wanting full frame video is basically saying I want my bank account set on fire for no reason at all.

Super 35 in 35mm film uses the full width of the film but is not as tall on the film.

that canon looks so much more pleasant

The issue with digital sensors is that they do not in anyway compare to film which has an 8k base resolution and super 35 could use that 8k to produce a far wider but not as tall image.

Imagine the money the camera manufacturers are making by selling numerous cameras to each individual. The cameras "never quite have" all the capabilities that people want. The Sony "a" series is a good example.

Moving the camera changed the shot, perspective was changed so it doesn’t match

sIGMA FP

One is large enough and the other one is still too small for the posers.

@DialloMoore503

2 жыл бұрын

Can you elaborate.

@VariTimo

2 жыл бұрын

@@DialloMoore503 Super 35 is a large enough sensor for most shallow depth of field needs. But a lot of posers think that Super 35 is too small and that they won’t get the shallow depth of field they want. Which is really dumb because there is a less than one stop difference between the two sensors. The other thing is that the Sigma is too small for poser to pose with on set. So while real professionals will go with the C300 poser will go with neither because they want something with full frame and a larger or at least properly out kit-able body.

@DialloMoore503

2 жыл бұрын

@@VariTimo Oh, okay. Thanks!

Really empty video. I learned nothing. Just modern youtube white noise

You are waaay too young to give explainatory videos about stuff. You just cant have enough experience. Although i dont know your age...

Unbelievable how the guy didn't explain super 35. "It's smaller than full frame". HOW much smaller? What a jerk... Dislike and unsubscribe.