Majority of video makers like Arri, Red, BlackMagic, Panavision, Sony and Canon, has S35(1.3x-1.7x) sensors in their portfolio, MORE SO than FF sensors, that’s just hard cold FACTS(not ignorance). Just look at Canon Cinema line up; C200B(S35), C300II&III(S35), C90-70-50(S35), C500(FF) and C700(FF). Why...because human eyes are more in line to render bokeh closer to S35 than FF sensor.
The latest ARRI product on S35 sensor, not FF.
PROOF S35 sensor(1.3x-1.7x) is the standard size in Cinema world, not FF.
YOU MUST BE A QANON MEMBER, MORE ON CONSPIRACY, LESS ON FACTS!
NOPE. WRONG. 1. Background blur can be and often used to isolate a subject for storytelling, and if need be the aperture can be adjusted to increase depth of field. S16 is STILL a popular format? Hahahaha. Which era do you live in? S16 died years ago and it was popular only with low budget work.Background blur is actually an issue, in video, audience only have split second to process what's going on, making your actor float on cloud of bokeh is not a good thing.
Aesthetically it looks good, but practically, nope, remember, you need to make the actor to interact with his/her surroundings
You can close the aperture to combat background blur, but you end up sacrificing light and use higher iso, why do that when you can use smaller format without light sacrifice in the first place.
This is One reason why S16 is still popular format.
Also, using bigger format on smaller sensor is the best combination, physics made corner of the lens not as sharp as center and suffer from vignette, less thing to fix during post processing
Dear Private. Actually, Kubrick went to great lengths to have great depth of field. You might want to watch the 'making of' of Citizen Cane.The biggest differences are in background blur, which is very apparent when direct comparisons are made, and noise. A ff sensor will always give you one stop higher iso performance whatever your personal upper limit of noise is.
Artistically both can be used to great advantage, just look at the lengths people like Kubrick went to to get better low light performance or subject separation.
Actually Sanj he went to great lengths to push boundaries in every direction, look up Barry Lyndon and the f0.7 Zeiss lenses made for NASA he had adapted.Dear Private. Actually, Kubrick went to great lengths to have great depth of field. You might want to watch the 'making of' of Citizen Cane.
Great Private. So he went to both extremes in different films. He would have just loved the separation we can get today will full frame. Also, like Citizen Kane he would be delighted with the extreme depth because of 800 native ISO in Alexa, Red.Actually Sanj he went to great lengths to push boundaries in every direction, look up Barry Lyndon and the f0.7 Zeiss lenses made for NASA he had adapted.
After seeing Barry Lyndon (1975) on the big screen this week, I felt compelled to write a blog post about its cinematography. But what aspect of the cinematography? The painterly look? The many zooms? The use of natural light? What I knew for certain is that I should definitely not write about...neiloseman.com
The man had a vision and went to extraordinary lengths to render that vision for us to see.Great Private. So he went to both extremes in different films. He would have just loved the separation we can get today will full frame. Also, like Citizen Kane he would be delighted with the extreme depth because of 800 native ISO in Alexa, Red.
That has got to be one of the studeist things I have ever read on here. You obviously didn't stop to think about what I wrote. If I am shooting produt work then I am lighting so I don't give a damn about "one more stop of iso performance. I always shoot at my base ISO because I control the light. But you think I should pay 3 times as much for a FF camrera and then shoot it in crop mode? And no a FF sensor doesn't always give you better IQ. 6D II? People get that foolish idea from the fact that camera manufacturers have usually put their best tech into their FF sensors because they charge more for them. There is more to a camera than just a sensor. There is more to a sensor than the size of it's pixels. But I guess if the only creative idea I could ever come up with was to shoot wide open then I would think like you.Get a grip and learn about equivalence, you can ALWAYS mimic a smaller sensor with a bigger one, you cannot always mimic a bigger sensor with a smaller one.
And when you do the former you will always be at least one stop of iso performance better.
If you want choice bigger is always better, if you want IQ bigger is always better.
A super 35 camera can get the same field of view by using a wider lens or being further back.That might well be true, but it is also true that times and technology change, iMax has been a bigger ‘standard’ for decades too but the cost of 70mm film held it back. Now bigger than s35 sensors are cheap and readily available so the underlying benefits of larger sensors/capture area are more apparent to more people at a price they can afford.
The ‘standard’ size of a tv has grown from 22” to 50” in the last 25 years yet viewing distances have not grown, meanwhile movie attendance has been decimated in the last year. 4K will become the norm as 5G proliferates and these all push resolution and capture sensor size to new limits.
Hell, I'd REALLY like a stills sensor in a more panoramic aspect ratio, if they made one like the Xpan film camera, I'd be all on board to buy that camera!!Kodak still sells 50 ISO daylight film. OTOH the R5 has base video ISO of what? 400? Trying opening up a fast lens at 1/50th of second in full sun.
Instead of looking at FF stills sensors it would make more sense to make a more video shaped sensor. At least make it a 2:1 aspect ratio o even better 2.40x1.
Hell, I'd REALLY like a stills sensor in a more panoramic aspect ratio, if they made one like the Xpan film camera, I'd be all on board to buy that camera!!
LOL, if they even made a modern 35mm film camera like the Xpan new today, hopefully mostly mechanical, I'd be near the front of the line to buy that.
At this point, I just wish someone would start making reasonable anamorphic lenses for FF cameras....why do they all cost an arm and a leg?
I'd love this for video, but I'd also REALLY enjoy it for stills.