Does APS-C delivers a more 'cinematic' look?

[isle]

If you write people off based on this kind of simple misunderstanding then I fear you have less of an open mind than you portray yourself as having.

If a person says cameras using same technology has more cinematic look, but the same person can't even tell the difference between RED and 7D footage, then yes.

You do remember him saying that him not seeing the difference between RED One and 7D footage proves the point that 7D is more cinematic than 5D?

 

[DavidBeier]

I think that's because the 7d is a cheaper camera. So they can't stand the fact that the 7d is a better choice for ones looking to replicate a particular 'look' of 35mm cinema.

Who's they?

I have a 60D and I love it to death. I never had any intention of buying a 5Dii as the price is not worth it and I do like knowing that using a 18mm lens on an APS-C sensor produces roughly the same perspective as an 18mm on a Super 35mm sensor (handy when watching DVD commentaries from DPs). Besides, I can't live without a swivel screen.

That said, my issue is with this generalization of labeling certain things "cinamtic" and others not, especially when devices are so close. Once again, full frame is a larger sensor than APS-C but it's not an extreme difference. If one were to put both cameras side by side, the difference would be clear but just looking at films shot on them without prior knowladge of what camera was shooting what or what the spacial relationships existed in the location, I don't think one is likely to be able to discern much of a difference. Right now 5Dii people (like a lot of filmmakers) tend to be shallow DoF crazy but that's not all the camera can do. The difference one finds I think has more to do with the logistics of shooting than the end image. Using a 35mm lens on both cameras means that one takes a step or two forward with the 5Dii to get roughly the same frame. It won't be 100% exactly the same frame but I really have a hard time believing that someone without prior knowlage of the setup would be able to pick one out.

I guess the whole thing of lableing one more "cinematic" gets me tired because I've been burnt out on that kind of dogma with film people. I've heard too many people with "experience" tell me over the years that they can always tell film from digital and I've watched as they've failed to do so. It's starting to feel like similar dogma is developing with the different breeds of digital. I've known so many people who argued that RED footage was always the bar none and they could discern anything that wasn't RED (proved wrong as well). Recently, I've known a lot of people with 5Diis who have insisted at length that the 5Dii is the only DSLR that should be used as none of others can create that "cinematic look" (their words, not mine).

It feels like with all this "mine is better/more-cinematic" people aren't looking at cameras for what they are: tools. My point was that one can achieve pretty much the exact same look with both cameras (except one has the option to get even shallower DoF with the 5Dii when shooting from the same distance). Back when everyone shot 35mm, no one argued that one lens or one camera was more cinematic than the next. They were just tools. People used different cameras, lenses, and film stocks for different situations and based on asthetic preference. Rather than this arbitrary designation, I'd rather hear people say something like, "I prefer the 7D because when I look up what lenses were used on my favorite 35mm films, I know that can get the same perspective and fov from using those lenses on my 7D" or "I prefer the 5Dii because I tend to shoot in very small locations so a full frame sensor helps me get the most out of my field of view."

That's why without knowing the situation in which a number of these films were shot, I find it very odd to say the 7D is more or less cinematic than the 5Dii. Having seen them side by side on many sets and intercut together constantly, I just think such a thing is a gross oversimplification of all that goes into creating a look.

 

[jambredz]

lol

 

[John Froton]

If a person says cameras using same technology has more cinematic look, but the same person can't even tell the difference between RED and 7D footage, then yes.

Still it does not mean he has nothing valuable to contribute. I myself have made many misjudgements in trying to tackle learning curves so I can relate. I see the frustration here as well and I agree with DavidBeier for sure as well as many valid points you are making.

Filmic and Cinematic means different things to different people and is difficult to nail down anything when another see's different components as being important.

From my experience in acheiving a cinematic look, the biggest thing I was wanting in the nineties was for video cameras to be able to have the cadence and temporal motion of 24 fps film. The combination of 24p and smooth shutter was number 1 followed by wanting more latitude in gamma scales. Camcorders had a harsh gradation from white to black in comparison to film having a smoother grayscale.

The truth is that cinematic films can vary so greatly that people should be more specific in learning what they are after. I mean lighting alone has made videos I have shot on a Sony VX1000 min DV camcorder at 60 fields per sec with a shutter speed of 30 look more cinematic than videos shot on a Canon DSLR at 24p. Much of it has to do with the subject matter and how you tackle it with your settings. DavidBeier says cameras are tools and he is right. You can't just put the weight of capability on the tool, it has to go on to the operator and the choices made considering so many other variables. Even angle of the sun or time of day. Watch Hollywood Camerawork DVDs and you'll start saying camera movement is a huge factor.