For those who wanted to know the f number (like I did). I measured and got approximately f1.3 for both the 50mm and 100mm lenses. I put the Arles 50mm next to it and it came out to f1.28 with the same measurement setup. The Arles 50mm looked to have an apparent entrance pupil of 39mm, diving 50 by 39 yields 1.28, or f1.3 if we round. The 100mm appears to have an entrance pupil of 75mm, so that calculates as f1.33. For comparison sake, I calculated my Canon 50mm RF f1.2 to be f1.16 (we could round that to f1.2 I suppose). So I'd say the Arles entrance pupils definitely don't measure quite as wide as f1.2, but are only slightly smaller, so we can say f1.3 or so with reasonable confidence.
as a photographer, we ALWAYS want to get the best possible shot in-camera FIRST, then we can play around with it in post. That's the film background for me.
Interesting comments Nick and beautiful lenses those Arles, though I have to tell you that I also like when you choose more depth of field (T2.8/4/5.6...) in many circumstances, in part because that's the way the eye sees the world. Based on cognitive neuroscience research we now know that the eye/brain works such that at any instant in time you focus in some portion of the scene, but the next instant your eyes move (saccades) and scan another portion, so you are getting like snapshots every moment and integrate them in time to have a complete sense of the scene that is in front of your eyes. When in some movies the director and DP chose to have extreme shallow depth of field most of the time, it could be problematic because the eye/brain, after scanning what the director force you to initially attend, wants to explore some other aspect of the scene, but in the case of extreme shallow depth of field that persist for too many seconds, that exploration lands in out of focus territory all the time, so after a while the eye gaze is forced to come back to the only thing in focus. And that could be annoying sometimes, making your sight feel that it has a lack of freedom or that the scene is getting boring. Extreme shallow depth of field (T1.4/2.0) should be used in my opinion only for short scenes in which you, as director, want to totally control what is in the focus of attention at every second, and those situations in most narrative films tend not to be many. We don't experience the world in shallow depth of field, at least not all the time. ruclips.net/video/e5Sa3H8QN6c/видео.html ruclips.net/video/EH6UVQZgvJE/видео.html ruclips.net/video/7x5GCC3vfQ8/видео.html ruclips.net/video/f7fHwLEtx3U/видео.html ruclips.net/video/0t-ShsJmALA/видео.html cbcd.bbk.ac.uk/people/affiliated/tim-smith
I’ve never tried to “shoot the way our eyes see” as many people talk about. It’s art, we can shoot however we like. Maybe you don’t like extended shallow DoF, but I absolutely do!
Keep it up. you will get there. I started filmmaking when I was 11 years old and 21 Years later I finally got to shoot my 1st Feature film. Just dont give up no matter what.
Dune 1 also used the Digital-Film-Digital process! printed to 100 ASA film so the grain wouldn't be too prominent, but still give a certain "not quite digital" look.
@@CallMeRabbitzUSVI that's an interesting take! Actually, I consider that a good thing. I'm always trying to find more confidence in the direction of my work, and finding a "home" in a particular style, workflow, lens, etc, is something I strive for. That doesn't mean I'm not open to other things, but in my experience, the best art comes from people who have a very specific voice, or "personality" as you might say. I hear you that you find it repetitive. But this channel is really my diary. If I write the same entry three times in a row, it's because I'm working something out for myself. If that's not something you want to see, I totally get it. There are other channels 🙂
Something for everyone to consider is. Is the ultra shallow depth of field serving the story? or is it obscuring visual information in the background or objects in the scene that are useful for the visual communication of the scene. Racking from everything you need to show to the next thing you need to show can potentially limit available visual language (which is fine). You just have to make the creative decision in an informed way. Personally I use my ultra-wide and wide lenses wide open as they retain enough background information for scene contextualization and object placement in the background scene. But as soon as I am on a mid range lens or tele lens I will stop down to retain some amount of visual information in the background to retain location and position context for the viewer. I will make the creative choice to go wide open on a long lens if I need to show a character feeling some sort of isolation or "in their own world", shock, love or intoxicated etc. But I don't find the visual style suits most scenes, and you will find movies will tend to use it sparingly too... unless you are Zack Snyder who just goes for spectacle over clear story driven visual language. Be conscious and informed of the visual language you choose, that is what makes a professional image ✌
I think you’re describing the “conventional wisdom” very well. And there’s nothing inherently wrong with it. Lots of great art has been made that way. I simply prefer a slightly different direction.
@@nick_salazar nothing wrong with that my dude 😊🤙 maybe I should have made it more clear in my comment, I was throwing in a comment for any noobies who come across this video. Not really directed at you as the video made it clear that the shallow DOF look is what you like and have chosen to present in your projects. I just see a lot of noobies in the current age of full frame, default to a wide open shallow DOF look as that is what is "cinematic", without making their own considered creative choice for the story. Just as an aside and completely different note. If larger capture formats interest you, I can recommend looking into a set of Mamiya M645 lenses and a M645 focal reducer adapter. The lenses are medium format 6x4.5cm negative which is huge compared to FF, focal reducing them down to a FF sensor gives you an ultra shallow depth of field especially with the 80/1.9 which ends up around a 50/0.95 if my memory of my math from the time is right. For reference, the lenses are rehoused for some of the Alexa 65 glass, but as normal unhoused lenses they are quite affordable. I made a set for my A7 maybe a decade ago and it was a super fun shallow DOF image system to play with. Just thought it might interest you if you wanted a crazy shallow DOF lens set.
@@jamesandcamera thanks for the suggestion! I've dabbled in the world of large-format adaptation, most deeply with my F-Zero Camera project: ruclips.net/video/gCBNGQ_jQKo/видео.html - it's a BIG setup but delivers unique results. So far I haven't found any smaller solutions which provide a meaningful advantage over full-frame f1.2 - f1.4 sets. The 645 lenses can get you one or two focal lengths slightly faster, but at the moment I tend to prefer what Arles does, even if it's slightly slower.
@@nick_salazar yeah the large format stuff is super fun to use as an experimental DOF adapter. Would work great in a crewed and grip supported cinema setting where they are used to supporting and managing large systems with a team. Not so easy to manage as a solo operator. I didn't know they made an off the shelf product now, it's been a long while since I played with it. That's cool and easy for people with budget 💰
Were you able to calculate the F-stop number of these lenses? Would love to know that number comes out to! I have a few of them scheduled to be delivered this week thanks to your videos haha, and I'm super excited to use them. Fantastic videos by the way, love your opinions on everything. Keep up the good work 👍
I did! They appear to be somewhere in the neighborhood of f1.3 to f1.4. I didn't have a perfect setup, it was a little seat-of-the-pants. But for comparison sake, I calculated my Canon 50mm RF f1.2 to be f1.16 (we could round that to f1.2 I suppose). I put the Arles 50mm next to it and it came out to f1.28 with the same measurement setup. The Arles 50mm looked to have an apparent entrance pupil of 39mm, diving 50 by 39 yields 1.28, or f1.3 if we round. The 100mm appears to have an entrance pupil of 75mm, so that calculates as f1.33. So f1.3 more or less, for both lenses, or maybe f1.4 to give me a little wiggle room in the measurements. They definitely aren't f1.2, but only slightly narrower.
I don't know why it happened, but I'm sure it has to do with people like YOU watching and commenting. So thank you! It's great to know that these videos are helpful or entertaining in some way.
Cooke describes several traits which they say contribute to their signature look. Warm color, uneven bokeh magnification from center to corners, bokeh characteristic, etc. I wouldn't say that these Arles primes really have those same characteristics, it's a different look. In short, Cooke goes in a specific direction (which many people love), while Arles mostly stays very neutral, clean, and sharp, with a bit of warm color and very soft bokeh. The fastest Cooke set, the S8, also opens up to T1.4 and of course has the "Cooke Look," but is 15 times more expensive, and much heavier as well. Personally, I LOVE the overall look from the Arles primes.
They’re very nice! I like that they’re lighter than Arles (on most focal lengths), plus the EF mount versions will give you metadata which can be nice. The Sigma lenses aren’t quite as clean or well corrected, but they’re still very good. They also exhibit significantly more focus breathing on most focal lengths. I don’t tend to mind the breathing too much, but if you mind it, Arles will be much better controlled.
@@nick_salazar I tend to use them the most on small productions. Those lenses being able to resolve around 33mp worth of resolution is insane. They also make my 3.8MP or 2.8K videos looks so much more sharp so I can just imagine how much more sharp they'd look when paired with your RED. Btw is there a way to connect PL lenses such as the Cooke S4i to EF mount?
@@shueibdahir yes there are PL to EF adapters, but the flanges are pretty close so you'll want to check the compatibility with the particular camera and lens you want to use them with before pulling the trigger on something like that.
It’s good to have fast lenses, but the era of shooting everything at sub 2.0 is pretty much over. That technique is kind of a crutch for not being able to actually compose a subject in an environment that and use lighting to keep the viewer’s eye where you want it. Street photography training can help with that.
Haha, fair enough. I mean that with these lenses, independent filmmakers can effectively achieve an IMAX look but without the need for all of that unattainable IMAX rare and VIP-rental-only equipment.
Sounds like you don’t quite know the precise argument I’m making. I’m guessing you didn’t watch the video. Either way, once you’ve watched, if you want to debate some specific point about it, let me know!
@@nick_salazarI'm on Front Foot's side, IMAX is way more than achievable shallow depth of field. 1. Resolution Film for IMAX Reaches a theoretical 18k, something that these lenses will not help you achieve. 2. Dynamic range The range of shadows to highlights are something amazing and unique to IMAX which renders skin tones and skys in a wonderful way. Something these lens won't help you achieve 3. GRAIN The grain structure of IMAX lends itself to be both clean and still retain that organic feeling leading to very much detailed scenes that feel lile you can jump right in. Again not achievable with these lenses. 4. And lastly, ASPECT Ration Shooting in large format 4:5 kind of forces you to think about framing alot more since viewers will be seeing your film in 3-6 story high Screens allowing for alot of head movement. Again the lenses have absolutely do nothing to emulate that.
Well… if you make films, you’ll probably agree that not everything and every shot calls for a shallow dof. Not every scene or contez in a shot, frame mends a blurry background. So the point u are making about these lenses is a bit pointless.
I mention that in the video. Again, I tend towards a shallow look more often than your average DP. You may think my choices are bad, and that's okay! Similarly, if you think my video is pointless, that's okay too! At the end of the day this is an art form, and if it were all the same it would be boring.
Please don't use words like "IMAX Killer" for a review of a set of (soft at the corners) Full Frame lenses. It makes viewers think you lack knowledge of what IMAX actually is. When in reality you are just fishing for clicks from people who don't know any better. Please don't turn into every other RUclipsrs (Read: Influencer)
Do you have a problem with my actual description of the lenses and how I compare them to other formats in the video? Or is it just the thumbnail text you dislike? I'm always happy to hear input and opinions, though I'm not too worried about how others perceive me. Call me a common influencer if you like, you wouldn't be the first 🙂
@@nick_salazarMy comment states don't use "IMAX Killer" for your reviews (That's what's in your Thumbnail). It's strange you brought up the content of your review since that was never stated in my previous comment. It seems like you tried a "got ya" comment like "Ha, see you didn't watch the video" when in reality reading comprehension should've came first. Now if you want me to talk about the video, you focus on the depth of field of the bigger iMAX a little too much. Completely missing the point of iMAX. I made another comment on this channel that went in depth unto what makes iMAX different than consumer or other cinema cameras. *SPOILER* It wasn't the depth of field which the depth of field of iMAX is more than achievable on a 35mm camera. Edit: Spelling
I’m not out to “get you.” It sounds like we just disagree, and that’s okay! Hopefully you find some value in my test footage, even if you don’t agree with my analysis and opinions. If not, that’s okay too.
That’s why it’s art! You don’t have to like it. I do :-) And yes, IMAX is (in part) about depth of field. At least, it can be and sometimes is used for that reason. It’s also higher resolution, but past 4k our eyes don’t know the difference unless the screen gets VERY large (like, The Sphere large). Anyway, again it comes down to artistic preference. If you know what you like, more power to you! Strong opinions make for strong art.
For those who wanted to know the f number (like I did). I measured and got approximately f1.3 for both the 50mm and 100mm lenses. I put the Arles 50mm next to it and it came out to f1.28 with the same measurement setup. The Arles 50mm looked to have an apparent entrance pupil of 39mm, diving 50 by 39 yields 1.28, or f1.3 if we round. The 100mm appears to have an entrance pupil of 75mm, so that calculates as f1.33. For comparison sake, I calculated my Canon 50mm RF f1.2 to be f1.16 (we could round that to f1.2 I suppose). So I'd say the Arles entrance pupils definitely don't measure quite as wide as f1.2, but are only slightly smaller, so we can say f1.3 or so with reasonable confidence.
as a photographer, we ALWAYS want to get the best possible shot in-camera FIRST, then we can play around with it in post. That's the film background for me.
Interesting comments Nick and beautiful lenses those Arles, though I have to tell you that I also like when you choose more depth of field (T2.8/4/5.6...) in many circumstances, in part because that's the way the eye sees the world. Based on cognitive neuroscience research we now know that the eye/brain works such that at any instant in time you focus in some portion of the scene, but the next instant your eyes move (saccades) and scan another portion, so you are getting like snapshots every moment and integrate them in time to have a complete sense of the scene that is in front of your eyes. When in some movies the director and DP chose to have extreme shallow depth of field most of the time, it could be problematic because the eye/brain, after scanning what the director force you to initially attend, wants to explore some other aspect of the scene, but in the case of extreme shallow depth of field that persist for too many seconds, that exploration lands in out of focus territory all the time, so after a while the eye gaze is forced to come back to the only thing in focus. And that could be annoying sometimes, making your sight feel that it has a lack of freedom or that the scene is getting boring. Extreme shallow depth of field (T1.4/2.0) should be used in my opinion only for short scenes in which you, as director, want to totally control what is in the focus of attention at every second, and those situations in most narrative films tend not to be many. We don't experience the world in shallow depth of field, at least not all the time.
ruclips.net/video/e5Sa3H8QN6c/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/EH6UVQZgvJE/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/7x5GCC3vfQ8/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/f7fHwLEtx3U/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/0t-ShsJmALA/видео.html
cbcd.bbk.ac.uk/people/affiliated/tim-smith
I’ve never tried to “shoot the way our eyes see” as many people talk about. It’s art, we can shoot however we like. Maybe you don’t like extended shallow DoF, but I absolutely do!
Keep it up. you will get there. I started filmmaking when I was 11 years old and 21 Years later I finally got to shoot my 1st Feature film. Just dont give up no matter what.
Thanks Nicholas! I've completely fallen in love with this art form and I'm grateful to be able to share and talk about it here on RUclips.
Dune 1 also used the Digital-Film-Digital process! printed to 100 ASA film so the grain wouldn't be too prominent, but still give a certain "not quite digital" look.
This guys Arles review videos are just too fan-boy for me. We get it. You love them.
I do!
Same here, he is making these lenses his personality 😂
@@CallMeRabbitzUSVI that's an interesting take! Actually, I consider that a good thing. I'm always trying to find more confidence in the direction of my work, and finding a "home" in a particular style, workflow, lens, etc, is something I strive for. That doesn't mean I'm not open to other things, but in my experience, the best art comes from people who have a very specific voice, or "personality" as you might say. I hear you that you find it repetitive. But this channel is really my diary. If I write the same entry three times in a row, it's because I'm working something out for myself. If that's not something you want to see, I totally get it. There are other channels 🙂
Thank you so much for your "crazy rants"! You are the one true hero Nick!
Something for everyone to consider is. Is the ultra shallow depth of field serving the story? or is it obscuring visual information in the background or objects in the scene that are useful for the visual communication of the scene. Racking from everything you need to show to the next thing you need to show can potentially limit available visual language (which is fine). You just have to make the creative decision in an informed way.
Personally I use my ultra-wide and wide lenses wide open as they retain enough background information for scene contextualization and object placement in the background scene. But as soon as I am on a mid range lens or tele lens I will stop down to retain some amount of visual information in the background to retain location and position context for the viewer. I will make the creative choice to go wide open on a long lens if I need to show a character feeling some sort of isolation or "in their own world", shock, love or intoxicated etc. But I don't find the visual style suits most scenes, and you will find movies will tend to use it sparingly too... unless you are Zack Snyder who just goes for spectacle over clear story driven visual language.
Be conscious and informed of the visual language you choose, that is what makes a professional image ✌
I think you’re describing the “conventional wisdom” very well. And there’s nothing inherently wrong with it. Lots of great art has been made that way. I simply prefer a slightly different direction.
@@nick_salazar nothing wrong with that my dude 😊🤙 maybe I should have made it more clear in my comment, I was throwing in a comment for any noobies who come across this video. Not really directed at you as the video made it clear that the shallow DOF look is what you like and have chosen to present in your projects.
I just see a lot of noobies in the current age of full frame, default to a wide open shallow DOF look as that is what is "cinematic", without making their own considered creative choice for the story.
Just as an aside and completely different note. If larger capture formats interest you, I can recommend looking into a set of Mamiya M645 lenses and a M645 focal reducer adapter. The lenses are medium format 6x4.5cm negative which is huge compared to FF, focal reducing them down to a FF sensor gives you an ultra shallow depth of field especially with the 80/1.9 which ends up around a 50/0.95 if my memory of my math from the time is right.
For reference, the lenses are rehoused for some of the Alexa 65 glass, but as normal unhoused lenses they are quite affordable.
I made a set for my A7 maybe a decade ago and it was a super fun shallow DOF image system to play with. Just thought it might interest you if you wanted a crazy shallow DOF lens set.
@@jamesandcamera thanks for the suggestion! I've dabbled in the world of large-format adaptation, most deeply with my F-Zero Camera project: ruclips.net/video/gCBNGQ_jQKo/видео.html - it's a BIG setup but delivers unique results. So far I haven't found any smaller solutions which provide a meaningful advantage over full-frame f1.2 - f1.4 sets. The 645 lenses can get you one or two focal lengths slightly faster, but at the moment I tend to prefer what Arles does, even if it's slightly slower.
@@nick_salazar yeah the large format stuff is super fun to use as an experimental DOF adapter. Would work great in a crewed and grip supported cinema setting where they are used to supporting and managing large systems with a team. Not so easy to manage as a solo operator. I didn't know they made an off the shelf product now, it's been a long while since I played with it. That's cool and easy for people with budget 💰
@@jamesandcameraCorrection: it makes the Mamiya 80mm f1.9 into a 56mm f1.33. Since it only speedboosts by 0.7
WellDone...ArlesAreTheBest.
Were you able to calculate the F-stop number of these lenses? Would love to know that number comes out to! I have a few of them scheduled to be delivered this week thanks to your videos haha, and I'm super excited to use them. Fantastic videos by the way, love your opinions on everything. Keep up the good work 👍
I did! They appear to be somewhere in the neighborhood of f1.3 to f1.4. I didn't have a perfect setup, it was a little seat-of-the-pants. But for comparison sake, I calculated my Canon 50mm RF f1.2 to be f1.16 (we could round that to f1.2 I suppose). I put the Arles 50mm next to it and it came out to f1.28 with the same measurement setup. The Arles 50mm looked to have an apparent entrance pupil of 39mm, diving 50 by 39 yields 1.28, or f1.3 if we round. The 100mm appears to have an entrance pupil of 75mm, so that calculates as f1.33. So f1.3 more or less, for both lenses, or maybe f1.4 to give me a little wiggle room in the measurements. They definitely aren't f1.2, but only slightly narrower.
I re-wrote this as a comment and pinned it, so others can see. Thanks for reminding me to post this 🙂
Great video! What filter did you use to get those flares?
Just a janky little thing I made myself. Nothing too fancy.
Looks awesome for being “janky”! It would be cool to see how you made it.
Thanks Joshua! Maybe I’ll post a video about it one day. A couple folks have asked.
Is there any way can we use anamorphic adaptor
I can't see why not. However I don't have any adapters so I can't test it for you.
Probably has something to do with the growth rate of your channel? Thanks again Nick!
I don't know why it happened, but I'm sure it has to do with people like YOU watching and commenting. So thank you! It's great to know that these videos are helpful or entertaining in some way.
@@nick_salazar Thanks, and you're welcome 🙂
Can you please rate how closer these lenses are with cooke lenses? Or Cooke look
Cooke describes several traits which they say contribute to their signature look. Warm color, uneven bokeh magnification from center to corners, bokeh characteristic, etc. I wouldn't say that these Arles primes really have those same characteristics, it's a different look. In short, Cooke goes in a specific direction (which many people love), while Arles mostly stays very neutral, clean, and sharp, with a bit of warm color and very soft bokeh. The fastest Cooke set, the S8, also opens up to T1.4 and of course has the "Cooke Look," but is 15 times more expensive, and much heavier as well. Personally, I LOVE the overall look from the Arles primes.
@@nick_salazarYou should get Arles ❤
How do you like the Sigma Cine primes?
They’re very nice! I like that they’re lighter than Arles (on most focal lengths), plus the EF mount versions will give you metadata which can be nice. The Sigma lenses aren’t quite as clean or well corrected, but they’re still very good. They also exhibit significantly more focus breathing on most focal lengths. I don’t tend to mind the breathing too much, but if you mind it, Arles will be much better controlled.
@@nick_salazar I tend to use them the most on small productions. Those lenses being able to resolve around 33mp worth of resolution is insane. They also make my 3.8MP or 2.8K videos looks so much more sharp so I can just imagine how much more sharp they'd look when paired with your RED.
Btw is there a way to connect PL lenses such as the Cooke S4i to EF mount?
@@shueibdahir yes there are PL to EF adapters, but the flanges are pretty close so you'll want to check the compatibility with the particular camera and lens you want to use them with before pulling the trigger on something like that.
It’s good to have fast lenses, but the era of shooting everything at sub 2.0 is pretty much over.
That technique is kind of a crutch for not being able to actually compose a subject in an environment that and use lighting to keep the viewer’s eye where you want it. Street photography training can help with that.
Thanks for your feedback. I’ll keep trying to improve my compositions!
Beautiful Beautiful wife, Salazar.
Thank you!
🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂
Could you turn off the light behind you , not really pleasing and very distracting 😂
WTF does IMAX killer even mean?
Haha, fair enough. I mean that with these lenses, independent filmmakers can effectively achieve an IMAX look but without the need for all of that unattainable IMAX rare and VIP-rental-only equipment.
@@nick_salazar Thats the stupidest thing I've ever heard. The lens doesn't make it IMAX and I am sure you know that.
Sounds like you don’t quite know the precise argument I’m making. I’m guessing you didn’t watch the video. Either way, once you’ve watched, if you want to debate some specific point about it, let me know!
@@nick_salazar I'm good. I have no interest in watching your click bait titled videos made by an influencer.
@@nick_salazarI'm on Front Foot's side, IMAX is way more than achievable shallow depth of field.
1. Resolution
Film for IMAX Reaches a theoretical 18k, something that these lenses will not help you achieve.
2. Dynamic range
The range of shadows to highlights are something amazing and unique to IMAX which renders skin tones and skys in a wonderful way. Something these lens won't help you achieve
3. GRAIN
The grain structure of IMAX lends itself to be both clean and still retain that organic feeling leading to very much detailed scenes that feel lile you can jump right in. Again not achievable with these lenses.
4. And lastly, ASPECT Ration
Shooting in large format 4:5 kind of forces you to think about framing alot more since viewers will be seeing your film in 3-6 story high Screens allowing for alot of head movement. Again the lenses have absolutely do nothing to emulate that.
Well… if you make films, you’ll probably agree that not everything and every shot calls for a shallow dof. Not every scene or contez in a shot, frame mends a blurry background. So the point u are making about these lenses is a bit pointless.
I mention that in the video. Again, I tend towards a shallow look more often than your average DP. You may think my choices are bad, and that's okay! Similarly, if you think my video is pointless, that's okay too! At the end of the day this is an art form, and if it were all the same it would be boring.
Please don't use words like "IMAX Killer" for a review of a set of (soft at the corners) Full Frame lenses. It makes viewers think you lack knowledge of what IMAX actually is. When in reality you are just fishing for clicks from people who don't know any better.
Please don't turn into every other RUclipsrs (Read: Influencer)
Do you have a problem with my actual description of the lenses and how I compare them to other formats in the video? Or is it just the thumbnail text you dislike? I'm always happy to hear input and opinions, though I'm not too worried about how others perceive me. Call me a common influencer if you like, you wouldn't be the first 🙂
@@nick_salazarMy comment states don't use "IMAX Killer" for your reviews (That's what's in your Thumbnail). It's strange you brought up the content of your review since that was never stated in my previous comment. It seems like you tried a "got ya" comment like "Ha, see you didn't watch the video" when in reality reading comprehension should've came first.
Now if you want me to talk about the video, you focus on the depth of field of the bigger iMAX a little too much. Completely missing the point of iMAX.
I made another comment on this channel that went in depth unto what makes iMAX different than consumer or other cinema cameras. *SPOILER* It wasn't the depth of field which the depth of field of iMAX is more than achievable on a 35mm camera.
Edit: Spelling
I’m not out to “get you.” It sounds like we just disagree, and that’s okay! Hopefully you find some value in my test footage, even if you don’t agree with my analysis and opinions. If not, that’s okay too.
Personally at T1.4 these images just look un-natural. DOF is just too shallow. IMAX is not about shallow DOF.
That’s why it’s art! You don’t have to like it. I do :-) And yes, IMAX is (in part) about depth of field. At least, it can be and sometimes is used for that reason. It’s also higher resolution, but past 4k our eyes don’t know the difference unless the screen gets VERY large (like, The Sphere large). Anyway, again it comes down to artistic preference. If you know what you like, more power to you! Strong opinions make for strong art.
@@nick_salazar 🙄RUclipsrs