One of the best videos in RUclips. Your chanel is Such a change from the usual reviewers that only read out specs and never share the actual knowledge. Keep up the good work. You're shootouts are the best.
I learned this as well, back in the 5D Mark ii days I used to shoot at a really shallow depth of field. I no longer do that. I mean if you got two people talking in a scene, on a full frame camera, you can shoot at F/7 and the background will be about where you want it.
Love your work. Your one of the most spot on and informative photography folk on the internet today. Your explanations are always so easy to understand. I have always believed that is sign of very high intelligence. Keep rocking it Mr. Mentor.
Thank you for making this. I'm a photographer and have been wanting to delve into video. The difference between film/digital and crop/full-frame has left me very confused. Thanks for clearing everything up!
Really good points! I don’t think I’ve ever heard someone mention this before, but it makes complete sense. I’ll keep happily shooting footage on my APS-C like I always have haha.
Good video. One other major reason for Full Frame sensors in motion picture is for shooting anamorphic. Larger sensor = less crop factor = better resolution. Not to mention more sensitive in lower light and shallower depth of field.
It's all relative though. Full frame just makes it easier to get a shallow depth of field. But, it's actually just doing you a favor. You can get a blurred background, which is what people actually want, with f5.6. It's all a matter of making sure that the subject is closer to you than it is to the background. In fact, the farther the background is away from the subject, not the camera necessarily, the blurrier the background is aps-c / super 35 is the perfect size. This is why I love my A6300
Thanks for the discussion on super-35, it's the clearest I've come across yet. However, on the crop factor, I partially disagree (and I'm mainly a videographer on a GH4!): I don't think people are worried about the crop factor as such, because if you have an APS-C or a micro 4/3 sensor, you have lenses that go with that. The issue starts when an additional crop factor happens only just in some video setting, as that can only be corrected by using a different lens (if available at all). On a GH4, it's true that in 4K the crop factor goes to 2.2x, but that means that my 12mm, rather than 24mm equivalent is now 26.4mm, not too bad. But take the 5D4: with a 1.74x crop factor, now a 24mm becomes about 40mm, which is a totally different beast.
Sigma 18-35 w/ Speedbooster comes out to be 27-53mm, but I agree it's hard to work with that FOV - I'm very happy with the switch from GH4 to A7Rii as a hybrid shooter. Shallower DOF, better low-light performance, IBIS - it's a dream come true.
Naw. I don't think so. If you actually shoot video on DSLR, and don't want wide angle distortion to exaggerate your subjects...I mostly shoot between 24-150mm. Unless its a hip-hop, agressive styled music video, I'm not shooting wide like that. What movie have you seen where most of the film is SWA? Not many I believe...... This is another reason why the crop doesn't bother me. Some DP's shoot at 24-35. Rarely do they go all the way down to 18. RARELY, is the key word (for a film).
Hey! I very much agree with you on the topic of "crop" sensors for video work. I just find it impractical to use photographic 35mm sensor size for all but the most controlled of environments. I think partially the problem is that we use strange language of "cropped" sensors, implying that they're somehow worse, or not the whole deal. Honestly, sometimes I even prefer the look of a smaller sensor as it can give more context to a photo or video due to a deeper depth of field. I have a friend with whom I debate this all the time. He seems to think that shallow depth of field is what makes a cinematic image. I just sigh deeply when he says that for the 6th time :)) Oh, and I actually started with a photographic background, but now I do both still and motion full time.
So the reason why cinematographers are more open minded to the gear and why they "pick the right tool for the job" is because on every movie set, the camera is rented by the company. The cinematographer just says what camera he wants to use. He does not pay for this. The photographers are paying thousands of dollars for the equipment and it's much harder for them to change setup completely and to try new things.
I have photographic background for 20 years, I must admit, *My Cinematographer Friends* way cooler & sophisticated than *my photographer friends*, when it comes to "knowledge, innovation & equipment taste" Cinematographer mostly adore Sony, Panasonic cameras (highly innovative gears) Photographer mostly adore Canon, Nikon, Fuji, Hasselblad, etc (more traditional gears)
Another benefit from shooting full frame 35mm I have found is the focal length. Since there is no crop factor, the compression of a 50mm matches the focal length.
Yeah well it all comes down to the job you're working on as you said in the end.. I went for the 1dxmark2 instead of the 5dm4 for the crop factor (not only of course, but it sure nailed the deal), I often find myself in tiny spots, sometimes freaking toilets, and shooting with a fisheye is not an option, I want to be able to work on my lenses without worrying too much if it will fit or not. Sure if I was shooting a movie crop wouldnt be an issue at all, but sadly for most of us having to shoot a bit of everything to make a proper living is the way to go
DOF is not influenced by the sensor. Take the sensor from an iPhone and IMAX 15 perfs film as example, you can get the same shallow DOF from both of them, though one is tiny and another is 10 times as large as s35mm film.
hey michael, i have a d500 and thinking of changing to d750 because the highlight on the d500 is blown compared to my past cameras too. the d500 is an awesome camera but i shoot mostly landscape and just tried the d500. do you think is it worth moving to d750 or should i keep my d500?
nice explanation. But one factor you sort of didn't take into account is the lens which are designed for that sensor. Lens and camera are one system. Cinema lenses are designed to cover cinema super 35 sensor. Full frame lenses are designed to cover the whole sensor of full frame cameras. Using the crop sensor in cameras for vidoe itself is not a big problem, the problem is when you put full frame lenses on it. Using cinema super 35 sensor size as an example to support the video crop factor of full frame cameras does not make a lot of sense.
I didn't mean that. You misunderstood me. You mentioned that cinema people are more open minded than the camera people regarding the crop factor. And there is a good reason for that. Because they do not have to worried about their 35mm lens becomes 55mm.
It's interesting how APS-C is often regarded as inferior, or semi-pro. But that's historically a photographer's point of view. Funny to think that this sensor size is closer to what real film has been for decades. And also interesting to talk about 35mm FF lens equivalent focal lengths. That's a reference for viewing angle based from photography as well. It is easy to use as a measurement instead of degrees for field of view. But people in video/film shouldn't forget that they shouldn't regard the FF photo focal lengths as the standard. All the top film makers have been using lenses on their vertical film. Made for Super 35. This makes cameras like the Sony A6000, A6300 and A6500 super valuable. More like little brothers to the FS5 and FS7 if I can say so... maybe little nephews. Yes the A7S captures more light... but with that thin thin thin depth of field...it's hard to have moving people in it. even if rehearsed. Let alone spontaneous docu/travel style. That shallow depth of field is awesome for portrait photography, where everything only has to be in focus for a fraction of a second a couple of times. Not continuous all the time.
These misconception about formats has irritated me for ages. Thank you for this Mike. I saw a review of the ursa mini and the guy actually said the super35 sensor was a downside and you should use a speed booster to get that full frame look. Seriously? DX
I have the sony a6300. What you just said here completely confuse the heck out of me. When I use super 35mm mode on my camera everything gets wider. When I just use regular mode (aps-c) it gets more narrow. Can you explain that?
Now if we talk about lenses, we measure it from full frame size and if we buy let’s say a 25mm lens for a mft camera, we automatically double it to correspond the full frame standard, saying we have a 50mm lens. Now having in mind that the Super 35mm is in a way the cinema standard, I always wondered why we measure it in the full frame standard. I assume that it comes from photography but then you could ask why it isn’t measured in two different ways. Like giving a Super 35mm Sensor the value 1 and having 0. values when we measure it up to full frame. And then I ask myself how is it measured on those big Hollywood productions where they toss on those big cinelenses for example a 35mm lens, are they still taking the value of a full frame sensor?
Thanks for the video Michel. However, I still wonder how dose a smartphone have a global shutter and a digital consumer camera don't... Without sounding negative, the only thing that comes in mind is camera companies greed... Also, film (the material itself) has its own look which is hard to mimic on digital cameras. This still yet have to be developed. Do you know any 16mm and up 4k global shutter camera in less then $1000?
you have mixed up video crop factor and still crop factor and so missed the bigger picture. people are unhappy witha full frame crop because they have full frame lenses plus it means the sensor is not using the full area. on mft and apc they can match the crop with apc and mft lenses and get to use all the sensor and have same fov for stills and video.
Thank you for creating this video! I've been trying to decide between MFT and FF... it is nice that MFT can go to nearly 6K on some cameras with its insanely wide crop, but it is equally, if not more nice/comforting, knowing FF has been such a long-standing top tier in video and television for years. Though, there is something to be said about Medium Format, which is just insanely wide and big all around. But, I'll come back to FF vs MFT, it seems as if recording video in the standard format is and will be just as fine and just as beautiful as it was when it started, just bigger and better these days, respectively.
Someone tell Tony and the rest of the haters of the cropped factors in Canon DSLR video mode about this. Lol. Also check out a video put up by Slanted Lens about how they realized that a shallow DOF in video means that getting your subjects in focus is really a challenge, they ended up getting sharper videos with the 5D Mark IV despite the anti-aliasing filter on their sensors (against Sony ).
Most ordinary keen amateur photographers cannot afford to choose a different camera for a different situation. They buy the one $1,000 camera and that is it. My 80D with three STM lenses does me well for ordinary pictures (family, landscapes, animals, birds, wildflowers etc) as well as kids athletics stills and videos. Perhaps your advice is more directed to the Professional.
Nice ! Cinematographers use cinematic lenses with T2 &cie and photographers uses canon and nikon lenses with fstops. Blured backgrounds for a motion pictures tends to be very unnatural when compared to our normal view I think that the super 35mm is the best choice to keep the viewer focused on the story rather than only the artistic look (super 16 is more close you can still see what is in the blured BGs). Movies shot on 65mm/70mm like "BARAKA, SAMSARA or the Dark knight tends to shift the visual more to the aspect of wide shots rather than close ups and to bring the character like Batman from the wide backgrounds in a natural environment you will need wider sensor and the anamorphic look. Watch this great video of Wolfcrow analysing Pfister's cinematography ruclips.net/video/mqi9jAY_nvI/видео.html
+Pieter Batenburg I think a couple reasons but mainly in that cinematography work is so hard and so much work & planning, that the camera they use and the issues that might come from it are the least of their problems. Lighting for example is a much bigger concern. They are used to crop factors of 1.5x, so that's never a concern. One of my buddies called it "home"
Simply put, every shot is worth a hole set up. Every configuration of sensor, camera and lens is good for that specific look at that moment of the script. That is why the cinematographer is an artist, tools follows his choices !
I'm sorry, but you fell into the trap of another misconception when talking about the sensor size. The truth is that DOF is not influenced by the sensor. It's only influenced by 3 things: Distance, focal length and aperture opening. It's not a big deal as there is an indirect relation between DOF and the sensor, but it still should have been discussed appropriately instead of saying that it directly affects DOF. It's easy to understand why this misconception exists: let's say that you are standing 10 feet away from your subject. With a 1x Crop sensor and a 50mm lens you are getting the whole subject in the frame. But if you want to have the subject framed the same with a 2x crop sensor you have to either move to 20 feet or to stay where you are and change your lens to 25mm. Both of these actions make the DOF wider. But it's not because of the sensor directly, it's because you want to reframe your subject. If you don't want to reframe, the DOF stays the same on both sensors
You are referring to the topic of equivalence, which was not specifically addressed in this video. Sounds like you might need a refresher though: www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care
Aaron Hall my reply was for toasted, but equivalence is a bit of a quagmire if both parties don't fully understand it. In more practical language, it's going to be much easier to get wider and more shallow depths of field with larger sensors from where you stand. Equivalence deals more with getting an equivalent images from different sized sensors and equivalent focal lengths, that therefore require different apertures to get similar DOFs.
One of the best videos in RUclips. Your chanel is Such a change from the usual reviewers that only read out specs and never share the actual knowledge. Keep up the good work. You're shootouts are the best.
Interesting observation, now that I think about it, I think you might be right.
Amazing explanation. So much photographers that do reviews on photographic cameras on youtube have to watch this video.
I learned this as well, back in the 5D Mark ii days I used to shoot at a really shallow depth of field. I no longer do that. I mean if you got two people talking in a scene, on a full frame camera, you can shoot at F/7 and the background will be about where you want it.
Love your work. Your one of the most spot on and informative photography folk on the internet today. Your explanations are always so easy to understand. I have always believed that is sign of very high intelligence. Keep rocking it Mr. Mentor.
finally someone said it . i was about to give up to make people understand it . thanks for the clarification and the video .
Light bulb! Thank you for this. I just got a C100 II for work, and wanted to be clear on the difference between super 35 vs full frame sensor size.
Awsome history lesson sir!
Alexandre Racine thank you Alex!
Thank you for making this. I'm a photographer and have been wanting to delve into video. The difference between film/digital and crop/full-frame has left me very confused. Thanks for clearing everything up!
thumbs up.....I love you for your most unbiased and natural reviews and concepts. great job and really appreciate!
Really good points! I don’t think I’ve ever heard someone mention this before, but it makes complete sense. I’ll keep happily shooting footage on my APS-C like I always have haha.
An eye opener for the crop sensor perspective, thanks
Good video. One other major reason for Full Frame sensors in motion picture is for shooting anamorphic. Larger sensor = less crop factor = better resolution. Not to mention more sensitive in lower light and shallower depth of field.
It's all relative though. Full frame just makes it easier to get a shallow depth of field. But, it's actually just doing you a favor. You can get a blurred background, which is what people actually want, with f5.6. It's all a matter of making sure that the subject is closer to you than it is to the background. In fact, the farther the background is away from the subject, not the camera necessarily, the blurrier the background is aps-c / super 35 is the perfect size. This is why I love my A6300
eagerly awaiting for the second part... really something new to learn...i would even pay to get the second part 😎
Thank you for clearing this up for me! Beautifully clear explanation there. Have subscribed- now to see what other stuff you've posted... 👍🏻
Excellent points and well presented. I always say the APS-C have more forgiving DOF than full frames. I like both though for what they are.
Thanks for the discussion on super-35, it's the clearest I've come across yet. However, on the crop factor, I partially disagree (and I'm mainly a videographer on a GH4!): I don't think people are worried about the crop factor as such, because if you have an APS-C or a micro 4/3 sensor, you have lenses that go with that.
The issue starts when an additional crop factor happens only just in some video setting, as that can only be corrected by using a different lens (if available at all). On a GH4, it's true that in 4K the crop factor goes to 2.2x, but that means that my 12mm, rather than 24mm equivalent is now 26.4mm, not too bad. But take the 5D4: with a 1.74x crop factor, now a 24mm becomes about 40mm, which is a totally different beast.
A Sigma 18-35 with speedbooster on GH4 isnt shooting at 18mm....its more like 36-45mm.
I use Sigma 18-35 on my 5D Mark IV also and get a similar frame of view, but 5D Mark IV has more bokeh
Sigma 18-35 w/ Speedbooster comes out to be 27-53mm, but I agree it's hard to work with that FOV - I'm very happy with the switch from GH4 to A7Rii as a hybrid shooter. Shallower DOF, better low-light performance, IBIS - it's a dream come true.
Naw. I don't think so. If you actually shoot video on DSLR, and don't want wide angle distortion to exaggerate your subjects...I mostly shoot between 24-150mm. Unless its a hip-hop, agressive styled music video, I'm not shooting wide like that. What movie have you seen where most of the film is SWA? Not many I believe...... This is another reason why the crop doesn't bother me. Some DP's shoot at 24-35. Rarely do they go all the way down to 18. RARELY, is the key word (for a film).
Wow! Very impressive!
Thanks for your time.
T.
Phoenix, Arizona USA
I did find this video helpful. Thanks for sharing your thoughts and observations with us.
Hey!
I very much agree with you on the topic of "crop" sensors for video work. I just find it impractical to use photographic 35mm sensor size for all but the most controlled of environments. I think partially the problem is that we use strange language of "cropped" sensors, implying that they're somehow worse, or not the whole deal. Honestly, sometimes I even prefer the look of a smaller sensor as it can give more context to a photo or video due to a deeper depth of field. I have a friend with whom I debate this all the time. He seems to think that shallow depth of field is what makes a cinematic image. I just sigh deeply when he says that for the 6th time :))
Oh, and I actually started with a photographic background, but now I do both still and motion full time.
So the reason why cinematographers are more open minded to the gear and why they "pick the right tool for the job" is because on every movie set, the camera is rented by the company. The cinematographer just says what camera he wants to use. He does not pay for this.
The photographers are paying thousands of dollars for the equipment and it's much harder for them to change setup completely and to try new things.
thank you very much for clarifying the differences. informative video.
I have photographic background for 20 years,
I must admit, *My Cinematographer Friends* way cooler & sophisticated than *my photographer friends*,
when it comes to "knowledge, innovation & equipment taste"
Cinematographer mostly adore Sony, Panasonic cameras (highly innovative gears)
Photographer mostly adore Canon, Nikon, Fuji, Hasselblad, etc (more traditional gears)
Another benefit from shooting full frame 35mm I have found is the focal length. Since there is no crop factor, the compression of a 50mm matches the focal length.
Wow!! Thank you so much. Very useful
Best explanation on RUclips! Thank you
Yeah well it all comes down to the job you're working on as you said in the end.. I went for the 1dxmark2 instead of the 5dm4 for the crop factor (not only of course, but it sure nailed the deal), I often find myself in tiny spots, sometimes freaking toilets, and shooting with a fisheye is not an option, I want to be able to work on my lenses without worrying too much if it will fit or not.
Sure if I was shooting a movie crop wouldnt be an issue at all, but sadly for most of us having to shoot a bit of everything to make a proper living is the way to go
This is great info Michael.
Another good video that I can agree to every point.
Suffice it to say: Great presentation! Well done =)
OH, in the end someone who knows what he is talking about, very very good job sir
Clear and concise. Thanks !!
Thanks a lot for this great explanation.
This is so eye-opening for me
Thanks for the great explanation!
Awesome video! thank you
This is the great sharing . Thank you .
very well explained
your post are awesome Nerdmafia, all facts tell these kids that all the time
Really interesting vid. Im interested in using higher end cameras, and this is essential information. Thanks again.
Great video, thanks!
Very clear, thanks!
Stellar video.
Great video well explained
good information tnx dude
Totally agree, people rely too much on gear and not in expertice
Interesting, thanks.
DOF is not influenced by the sensor. Take the sensor from an iPhone and IMAX 15 perfs film as example, you can get the same shallow DOF from both of them, though one is tiny and another is 10 times as large as s35mm film.
this guy is awesome
hey michael, i have a d500 and thinking of changing to d750 because the highlight on the d500 is blown compared to my past cameras too. the d500 is an awesome camera but i shoot mostly landscape and just tried the d500. do you think is it worth moving to d750 or should i keep my d500?
+IamNeil aRon the sensor in the d500 is incredible. If you are shooting mostly landscapes (stills) d750 makes sense
nice explanation. But one factor you sort of didn't take into account is the lens which are designed for that sensor.
Lens and camera are one system.
Cinema lenses are designed to cover cinema super 35 sensor.
Full frame lenses are designed to cover the whole sensor of full frame cameras.
Using the crop sensor in cameras for vidoe itself is not a big problem, the problem is when you put full frame lenses on it.
Using cinema super 35 sensor size as an example to support the video crop factor of full frame cameras does not make a lot of sense.
citrateda tell me why full frame lenses on crop sensors are not allowed and where you got that information.
I didn't mean that. You misunderstood me.
You mentioned that cinema people are more open minded than the camera people regarding the crop factor. And there is a good reason for that.
Because they do not have to worried about their 35mm lens becomes 55mm.
citrateda you should rewatch the video.
What are some good cine lenses for super 35
Last night had the same problem 5dmkii with 50 1.8 couldn't pull focus fast enough Even at f5.6
nice info. but as far as i read cinematographers later put 35mm film horizontal so its aspect ratio become around 16:9
It's interesting how APS-C is often regarded as inferior, or semi-pro. But that's historically a photographer's point of view.
Funny to think that this sensor size is closer to what real film has been for decades.
And also interesting to talk about 35mm FF lens equivalent focal lengths. That's a reference for viewing angle based from photography as well. It is easy to use as a measurement instead of degrees for field of view. But people in video/film shouldn't forget that they shouldn't regard the FF photo focal lengths as the standard. All the top film makers have been using lenses on their vertical film. Made for Super 35.
This makes cameras like the Sony A6000, A6300 and A6500 super valuable. More like little brothers to the FS5 and FS7 if I can say so... maybe little nephews.
Yes the A7S captures more light... but with that thin thin thin depth of field...it's hard to have moving people in it. even if rehearsed. Let alone spontaneous docu/travel style. That shallow depth of field is awesome for portrait photography, where everything only has to be in focus for a fraction of a second a couple of times. Not continuous all the time.
amazing
Thank You
Holy Cow!!! Look at those guns.
These misconception about formats has irritated me for ages. Thank you for this Mike. I saw a review of the ursa mini and the guy actually said the super35 sensor was a downside and you should use a speed booster to get that full frame look. Seriously? DX
"Full frame video" is the cancer amongst wannabee cinematographers. There's no such thing in cinema industry.
Jaspion88 vista vision, 70/65mm film, imax, 6+perf film, Alexa 65, etc.
I have the sony a6300. What you just said here completely confuse the heck out of me. When I use super 35mm mode on my camera everything gets wider. When I just use regular mode (aps-c) it gets more narrow. Can you explain that?
A6300 is an APSC Camera (not full frame), however there are different crops depending on your fps, such as 120, 30 or 24 -
Good Stuff
super 35mm equals to aps-c? Didn't quite understand
Now if we talk about lenses, we measure it from full frame size and if we buy let’s say a 25mm lens for a mft camera, we automatically double it to correspond the full frame standard, saying we have a 50mm lens. Now having in mind that the Super 35mm is in a way the cinema standard, I always wondered why we measure it in the full frame standard. I assume that it comes from photography but then you could ask why it isn’t measured in two different ways. Like giving a Super 35mm Sensor the value 1 and having 0. values when we measure it up to full frame.
And then I ask myself how is it measured on those big Hollywood productions where they toss on those big cinelenses for example a 35mm lens, are they still taking the value of a full frame sensor?
the anamorphic lenses needed for super 35 aren't used in modern digital cameras so their effects on the image are a thing of the past.
Thanks for the video Michel. However, I still wonder how dose a smartphone have a global shutter and a digital consumer camera don't... Without sounding negative, the only thing that comes in mind is camera companies greed...
Also, film (the material itself) has its own look which is hard to mimic on digital cameras. This still yet have to be developed.
Do you know any 16mm and up 4k global shutter camera in less then $1000?
you have mixed up video crop factor and still crop factor and so missed the bigger picture. people are unhappy witha full frame crop because they have full frame lenses plus it means the sensor is not using the full area. on mft and apc they can match the crop with apc and mft lenses and get to use all the sensor and have same fov for stills and video.
how comes you change the name of your RUclips channel
Evergreen
Thank you for creating this video! I've been trying to decide between MFT and FF... it is nice that MFT can go to nearly 6K on some cameras with its insanely wide crop, but it is equally, if not more nice/comforting, knowing FF has been such a long-standing top tier in video and television for years. Though, there is something to be said about Medium Format, which is just insanely wide and big all around. But, I'll come back to FF vs MFT, it seems as if recording video in the standard format is and will be just as fine and just as beautiful as it was when it started, just bigger and better these days, respectively.
Someone tell Tony and the rest of the haters of the cropped factors in Canon DSLR video mode about this. Lol. Also check out a video put up by Slanted Lens about how they realized that a shallow DOF in video means that getting your subjects in focus is really a challenge, they ended up getting sharper videos with the 5D Mark IV despite the anti-aliasing filter on their sensors (against Sony ).
damm! 6500 vs a7sii ... hummmm
5D mark II came out in 2008, not in 2009.
imperatorMher true! My mistake.
This was not about cameras, as said at the beginning ...
Most ordinary keen amateur photographers cannot afford to choose a different camera for a different situation. They buy the one $1,000 camera and that is it. My 80D with three STM lenses does me well for ordinary pictures (family, landscapes, animals, birds, wildflowers etc) as well as kids athletics stills and videos. Perhaps your advice is more directed to the Professional.
007Stalled 7 this advice is for everyone - you have 1.6x crop body, so it is very close to super 35mm. More than enough to shoot good video
Thanks Michael - you have reassured me.
Nice ! Cinematographers use cinematic lenses with T2 &cie and photographers uses canon and nikon lenses with fstops. Blured backgrounds for a motion pictures tends to be very unnatural when compared to our normal view I think that the super 35mm is the best choice to keep the viewer focused on the story rather than only the artistic look (super 16 is more close you can still see what is in the blured BGs). Movies shot on 65mm/70mm like "BARAKA, SAMSARA or the Dark knight tends to shift the visual more to the aspect of wide shots rather than close ups and to bring the character like Batman from the wide backgrounds in a natural environment you will need wider sensor and the anamorphic look.
Watch this great video of Wolfcrow analysing Pfister's cinematography
ruclips.net/video/mqi9jAY_nvI/видео.html
Any idea why your cinematographers friends are more open-minded?
+Pieter Batenburg I think a couple reasons but mainly in that cinematography work is so hard and so much work & planning, that the camera they use and the issues that might come from it are the least of their problems. Lighting for example is a much bigger concern. They are used to crop factors of 1.5x, so that's never a concern. One of my buddies called it "home"
Simply put, every shot is worth a hole set up. Every configuration of sensor, camera and lens is good for that specific look at that moment of the script. That is why the cinematographer is an artist, tools follows his choices !
holy macoroni your arms are full frame bro, lean up homie :)
Some so-called cinematographer I knew, dimissed GH4, cause its not good enough FOR THEIR FUCKING WEDDING VIDEO..
Please say "Follow me if you wanna life" or "into da choppa".
The more of a DP you are the more you are going to use DSLR for stills and not for video. The inverse is also true. But for the novice it's whatever.
kickapowwww this is trye
If you shoot on sensors you're a videographer. Only cinematographers use film.
I'm sorry, but you fell into the trap of another misconception when talking about the sensor size. The truth is that DOF is not influenced by the sensor. It's only influenced by 3 things: Distance, focal length and aperture opening. It's not a big deal as there is an indirect relation between DOF and the sensor, but it still should have been discussed appropriately instead of saying that it directly affects DOF.
It's easy to understand why this misconception exists: let's say that you are standing 10 feet away from your subject. With a 1x Crop sensor and a 50mm lens you are getting the whole subject in the frame. But if you want to have the subject framed the same with a 2x crop sensor you have to either move to 20 feet or to stay where you are and change your lens to 25mm. Both of these actions make the DOF wider. But it's not because of the sensor directly, it's because you want to reframe your subject. If you don't want to reframe, the DOF stays the same on both sensors
Toasted Synapse Gaming I dont understand why when given the same framing and distance, the bokeh looks different between my 5d mark 4 and 70d
You are referring to the topic of equivalence, which was not specifically addressed in this video. Sounds like you might need a refresher though: www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care
Great article. Pretty much came to the same conclusions with my testing
Aaron Hall my reply was for toasted, but equivalence is a bit of a quagmire if both parties don't fully understand it. In more practical language, it's going to be much easier to get wider and more shallow depths of field with larger sensors from where you stand.
Equivalence deals more with getting an equivalent images from different sized sensors and equivalent focal lengths, that therefore require different apertures to get similar DOFs.
I know. I just wanted to read it wise Maven. Really good read and better explains my test results. Now I can intelligently explain this to others.
stop using synthol
well explained! Thanks!