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

hmm, I think I'm not expressing my point very clearly. But it's nothing related with colors, dof or light. It's just the way the image is projected on the sensor.

Here's another 7d example more 'documentary' style with lots of shallow DOF. For me the difference from any 5d film is clear.

 
Fellipe said:
Two more videos to prove my point:

7D:
[vimeo.com/8076064[/video]


5D:
[vimeo.com/7058755[/video]
Click to expand...

The first one is shot with Red One. You don't seem to even know how 7D footage looks like. 7D was only used on few dream sequence shots.
 
isle said:
The first one is shot with Red One. You don't seem to even know how 7D footage looks like. 7D was only used on few dream sequence shots.
Click to expand...

That proves my point. 7D does really look like 35 cinema.
The last video I posted (right above your post) is totally shot with 7d.
 
The one with dog doesnt look cinematic or filmlike at all.It just shows a story that a lot of us went though thats why watching experience is different.
Mostly its about lighting but you dont notice until you start to paying attention why some things look flat and some things look better.
5D:
http://vimeo.com/17419333

http://vimeo.com/11134536

*I like beginning of this one, shadows and lights create the mood.Not possible to embed this
http://vimeo.com/21714293
*
 
Last edited:
Fellipe said:
That proves my point. 7D does really look like 35 cinema.
The last video I posted (right above your post) is totally shot with 7d.
Click to expand...
Proves the point that you didn't even realize it was shot on Red and that means you don't even know what 7D footage can look like.

There are plenty of videos where Red and 5D are used but you can't tell which shots are from 5D because it is used on right shots where it can match the Red after color correction.
 
isle said:
The first one is shot with Red One.
Click to expand...

That's what I thought. A friend of a friend worked on it and said they used Red One.

hmm, I think I'm not expressing my point very clearly. But it's nothing related with colors, dof or light. It's just the way the image is projected on the sensor.
Click to expand...

I don't think you really have a point. Field of view doesn't make one camera more or less cinematic since you can achieve the exact same field of view with a 7D or 5Dii by simply taking a step or two forward or a step or two back. No camera is producing more cinematic images.
 
How does the 5D compare to Imax film in terms of frame size? I want to bring this up because I don't think the 35mm motion picture sensor size is a special ingredient to making our stuff look like film. Nor is the 5D's size. We see both in the theater, and both look equally filmic (excluding the increase in resolution from shooting with imax film). The real variable is lighting and mes en scene. As long as the sensor is big enough to adequately control DOF (which both the 5D and the 7D and even the GH2 can with fast primes), you're fine.

One thing that turns me off is the digital noise within DSLR footage. I HATE IT! This is one area why I prefer the 5D footage to 7D footage: the squarish red and multi-colored digital noise is less apparent than with the 7D. One thing I would recommend is to denoise whenever using iso's that cause it to be noticeable, and then possibly throw some slight post production grain on top. Just slight. It seems to give the illusion of sharpness, which makes up for the "low" resolution of HDSLR footage. Film grain is one area that I do consider to make your picture look more "film like", but the key is not to overdo it.

For web, this doesn't matter. Grain will become blotchy when it's recompressed for web, and you'll end up with the same artifacting that you fixed in the first place.
 
Last edited:
A quote from Barry Green. (author of the Lighting for film and television dvd)

"With "full frame", you get 35mm still-camera field of view and depth of field.

With the 7D, you get 35mm movie-camera field of view and depth of field. The 7D's sensor is almost exactly the same size as a 35mm movie camera. So you'll get the same perspective, the same depth of field, the same "feel" as 35mm movies. The 5D doesn't give that, it's too shallow (as compared to movies). The 7D replicates the DOF characteristics of a motion-picture camera perfectly. "
 
Fellipe said:
A quote from Barry Green. (author of the Lighting for film and television dvd)

"With "full frame", you get 35mm still-camera field of view and depth of field.

With the 7D, you get 35mm movie-camera field of view and depth of field. The 7D's sensor is almost exactly the same size as a 35mm movie camera. So you'll get the same perspective, the same depth of field, the same "feel" as 35mm movies. The 5D doesn't give that, it's too shallow (as compared to movies). The 7D replicates the DOF characteristics of a motion-picture camera perfectly. "
Click to expand...

But I thought you said in your last post that it had "nothing to do with DoF."

The perspective changes.
Click to expand...

Take a look at the recent shoot-out.

Here you have a bunch of cameras side and by and you can see that the 5Dii isn't making any markedly different images from the other. They used the same lens for each camera and all they had to do was simply move the 5Dii a foot or two forward. The results speak for themselves. I watched the comparison shots about 20 times (when deciding which camera to buy) and only this last time was I able to notice any perceivable difference in the perspective of the 5Dii (the flowers in the foreground are a bit more out of focus). This difference in focus could easy be reduced by moving the flowers slightly closer and there is no way that one watching the two shots without knowldage of the cameras would be able to pick out the 5Dii.




Look, I'm not trying to be condescending, but I seriously doubt you'd be able to pick out 5Dii footage from 7D on your average film. This just seems like another one of those instances where people act like the camera is the key to making a film look professional rather than the filmmaker. The camera certainly plays a role in the visuals but you've got such incredibly similar cameras in this case that the difference is pretty much negligable. A 1.6 difference in sensor size just isn't that huge. It is a difference but not major enough to be noticable as long as the DP uses the appropriate lenses. It's similar to the 4/3 sensor in Pansonic cameras. I wish it was bigger but it doesn't create a huge impact. The real difference is between the old 1/3 sensor cameras and the new large sensor ones. With an HVX or HPX, the 1/3 sensor needed a 4-55mm (I think) zoom lens for a 12x zoom. With an Super 35mm sensor, one would need a 18-270mm for the same zoom range and field of view. Such a difference mean that filmmakers were using a whole different class of lenses when shooting on a 1/3 camera compared to a 35mm one (which is why a lot of us would back those things as far away as we could and then zoom in all the way for close-ups in order to get a more "pleasing" perspective on the face). The 7D and 5Dii aren't using such a different range of lenses. There is a difference but for an audience it's not going to be percievable.
 
The 7D's sensor is almost exactly the same size as a 35mm movie camera. So you'll get the same perspective, the same depth of field, the same "feel" as 35mm movies
Click to expand...


Did you miss this?
 
HEy, someone's eyes could be better trained than yours, i still cant tell some focal lenghts sometimes but some people can tell them right away, its called experience and dont compare it like that cause there are people who can tell the difference even if you cant do it.
BEsides sensor size doesnt create depth of field like from movies, lens does it and cinema lenses are bit different than DSLR lenses.IMO super 35mm is tiny bit wider than canon APS-C and it makes difference for me, RED sensor is good for super 35mm cause its wider than canon 16:9 crop from APS-C.
 
Last edited:
I have a solid photography background (more than 10 years) and I can tell if an image was shot with a wide, a normal or a tele photo lens. It's everything related with PERSPECTIVE.
Sure you can put a wide angle lens and get very close to the subject BUT no way it would look like the same shot (same field of view) taken with a telephoto (which compress the perspective).
It's all basic photography.
 
I would prefere 5D cause on 7D/APS-C with 28mm f2.8 when you frame someone for portrait shot and crop to cinemascope then you often have too much stuff in focus in background, when i want wider FOV and avoid distortion of wide angle and still have out of focus background then i need 28mm f1.8.IVE seen this stedicam shot in "Hanna" where they had wide angle but they framed Eric Bana from hips to top of his head and there was still a lot of out of focus field in the background, on APS-C you would be on infinity with such wide lens especially on cinemascope crop, i dont know what kind of light this wide lens had.I dont like to fight with too much focus in background,thats why i would prefere 5D and stop lenses down.And no it wasnt super shallow DOF in this stedicam scene but enough of it to throw background away and focus on characters, very often on APS-C wide angle shots look like camcorder stuff if perspective or dolly isnt used and even then its better to throw background off focus a bit.
 
Fellipe said:
A quote from Barry Green. (author of the Lighting for film and television dvd)

"With "full frame", you get 35mm still-camera field of view and depth of field.

With the 7D, you get 35mm movie-camera field of view and depth of field. The 7D's sensor is almost exactly the same size as a 35mm movie camera. So you'll get the same perspective, the same depth of field, the same "feel" as 35mm movies. The 5D doesn't give that, it's too shallow (as compared to movies). The 7D replicates the DOF characteristics of a motion-picture camera perfectly. "
Click to expand...

By that logic, shooting in imax renders less "filmic" aesthetics than 35mm movie film. I can't say I agree with that.
 
Fellipe said:
[/I]

Did you miss this?
Click to expand...
You don't know what you are talking about. Using correct lens and distanse you can get the same FOV, DOF and perspective: http://gallery.me.com/prolost#100102/theShotYouCanMake_009_720_0001&bgcolor=black it seems also that Barry Green don't know that lenses can be stopped down to archiieve deeper DOF.

There are tons of movies shot with super 16mm film that has way smaller sensor size than super 35mm, still all those movies look as filmic as super 35mm. There's also many movies shot digital with 2/3 sensor size (like Zodiac and Benjamin Button) which is even smaller and those movies look just as good. The sensor size makes no difference to the filmic look. What makes the dfference is the technology camera is using to record the image.
 
bwwd said:
I would prefere 5D cause on 7D/APS-C with 28mm f2.8 when you frame someone for portrait shot and crop to cinemascope then you often have too much stuff in focus in background, when i want wider FOV and avoid distortion of wide angle and still have out of focus background then i need 28mm f1.8.IVE seen this stedicam shot in "Hanna" where they had wide angle but they framed Eric Bana from hips to top of his head and there was still a lot of out of focus field in the background, on APS-C you would be on infinity with such wide lens especially on cinemascope crop, i dont know what kind of light this wide lens had.
Click to expand...

Did they use anamorphic lenses? A lot of these comparisons miss the fact that a lot of filmmakers use anamorphic lenses when shooting with film. That way a 30mm lens is way wider and still has great bokeh. It actually matches way better with the 5d when shooting with regular lenses and in a 2.35:1 aspect ratio, not the 7d.

5D is the way to go to get the "anamorphic" look without all the flaws like blurry sides and angular out-of-focus elements. With the 7d you cannot really get it without anamorphic lenses. With the 5d you get close enough.
 
Acheiving a particular kind of cinematic look has a lot more to do with lens variables than whether it was shot on a 5D or 7D body since DOF can be stopped up or down to compensate for the difference in sensor size. More important is the use of f stops in the quality range, away from the extremes and to use the sweet spot in a particular zoom lens' zoom range.

I think format and codec limitations play a part, but more important is the placement and arrangment of subject matter that is being shot and it's distance in relationship to the camera, combined with chosen focal lengths and f stops.
 
Barry_Green said:
The 5D is the oddball, its sensor is twice as big as movie film and accordingly, the DOF doesn't look like movie DOF.
Click to expand...
Huh? Of course it looks if you stop down your f-stop to match the sensor size difference. You sound like you don't know that you can change the aperture setting on the camera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top