Full Frame (35mm) and 65mm... anyone else craving?
- Thread starter Kholi
- Start date
Ryan Patrick O'Hara
Veteran
Not really. 
I'd be interested in 65mm or IMAX if I could ever display that resolution and I'd LOVE to do it if I had something to shoot worthy of such scale (not normal dialogue scenes or indie film type stuff). Otherwise I think the benefits (resolution) are wasted and has more con's than pro's for most narrative film-making when done digitally or finishing in 1080p.
I know you really love it, but my approach to cinematography will conflict with yours under most circumstances in regards to super sized sensors. I don't see the benefits of it when it does not give a greater resolution as it does in actual film-making. I totally understand IMAX and 65/70mm film presentation. I don't get FF cameras that produce 1080 HD. Why use it otherwise?
Perhaps I would be interested if the 5dMII wasn't a garbage cinema camera, and/or the entire chip size was dedicated to video, meaning larger pixels for HD over a FF sensor... that would give a great light gathering and clean image ability. Which right now it does not have. 5DmII is the only FF video camera, and it's quite awful compared to S35mm sized or close-to options.
If you are going to have a large sensor, and NOT give the benefit of mega-resolution, you ought to at least give a greater sensitivity and cleaner signal noise ratio by enlarging photosites. Just saying.
Why use FF, 65mm, or 70mm if you are only displaying at 1080mpeg2 or (4k if Phantom65) and do not have sensitivity benefits? For the wide angle FoV? There are many wonderful lenses for S35mm that are available... off the top of my head, I'd shoot Zeiss Ultra 8R, Ultra 10mm, Cooke 12mm, etc. Plus I don't see myself going so wide (FoV) that often. I'm not shooting in style of Fear and Loathing (10mm standard speed for wides) on every project I shoot. It gives a look right for very particular films, if used in anything but a wide shot, such as the drugged out CU's of Johnny Depp.
And to be clear, I'm not against larger formats. I am against the 5D, personally, and I am against using large format when the benefits or aesthetics aren't called for or prevalent. I've yet to see anything but a studio picture have the resources and capacity to handle a large format picture done right.... which means capturing an image with the benefits of the medium and displaying the image back to show those benefits.
With that said, I still believe that photo-chemical film production is the only way to do this in today's world. 4k is great and all, but that's not even on par with a S35mm film print.... maybe it can be if talking about a release print made after several strikes of an inter-negative... but certainly not an inter-positive! If talking about the resolution of IMAX, which is horizontal versus the vertical 65mm which was used in Inception, we are talking about an image that dominates even FF photography film...
Nolan and Pfister do it right. Most IMAX science center type films do it right. Baraka did it right.
I'd be interested in 65mm or IMAX if I could ever display that resolution and I'd LOVE to do it if I had something to shoot worthy of such scale (not normal dialogue scenes or indie film type stuff). Otherwise I think the benefits (resolution) are wasted and has more con's than pro's for most narrative film-making when done digitally or finishing in 1080p.
I know you really love it, but my approach to cinematography will conflict with yours under most circumstances in regards to super sized sensors. I don't see the benefits of it when it does not give a greater resolution as it does in actual film-making. I totally understand IMAX and 65/70mm film presentation. I don't get FF cameras that produce 1080 HD. Why use it otherwise?
Perhaps I would be interested if the 5dMII wasn't a garbage cinema camera, and/or the entire chip size was dedicated to video, meaning larger pixels for HD over a FF sensor... that would give a great light gathering and clean image ability. Which right now it does not have. 5DmII is the only FF video camera, and it's quite awful compared to S35mm sized or close-to options.
If you are going to have a large sensor, and NOT give the benefit of mega-resolution, you ought to at least give a greater sensitivity and cleaner signal noise ratio by enlarging photosites. Just saying.
Why use FF, 65mm, or 70mm if you are only displaying at 1080mpeg2 or (4k if Phantom65) and do not have sensitivity benefits? For the wide angle FoV? There are many wonderful lenses for S35mm that are available... off the top of my head, I'd shoot Zeiss Ultra 8R, Ultra 10mm, Cooke 12mm, etc. Plus I don't see myself going so wide (FoV) that often. I'm not shooting in style of Fear and Loathing (10mm standard speed for wides) on every project I shoot. It gives a look right for very particular films, if used in anything but a wide shot, such as the drugged out CU's of Johnny Depp.
And to be clear, I'm not against larger formats. I am against the 5D, personally, and I am against using large format when the benefits or aesthetics aren't called for or prevalent. I've yet to see anything but a studio picture have the resources and capacity to handle a large format picture done right.... which means capturing an image with the benefits of the medium and displaying the image back to show those benefits.
With that said, I still believe that photo-chemical film production is the only way to do this in today's world. 4k is great and all, but that's not even on par with a S35mm film print.... maybe it can be if talking about a release print made after several strikes of an inter-negative... but certainly not an inter-positive! If talking about the resolution of IMAX, which is horizontal versus the vertical 65mm which was used in Inception, we are talking about an image that dominates even FF photography film...
Nolan and Pfister do it right. Most IMAX science center type films do it right. Baraka did it right.
Last edited:
Technically, you're right, Ryan. I have no other reason to want to shoot Full Frame other than to experiment with something that's not that common right now.
I did dislike Full Frame, but I want to try something a bit more creative and different sometime soon. I think working with 65mm and FF35 could be fun with the right project, not just a talking heads picture but something sci-fi/fantasy based. That's what I do, or am interested in, anyway.
I did dislike Full Frame, but I want to try something a bit more creative and different sometime soon. I think working with 65mm and FF35 could be fun with the right project, not just a talking heads picture but something sci-fi/fantasy based. That's what I do, or am interested in, anyway.
Ryan Patrick O'Hara
Veteran
It's all good Kholi, and I like experimenting to.
What do you think FF (5dmII) or 65mm phantom is going to give you different from S35mm say, on a Red1MX, or 3.5k down sampled to 2k Alexa? Mind you, if you're not shooting the entire feature at 140fps or whatever the 4k Phantom65mm can provide.
I guess shallower DoF?
That's all I can think of, and that can be a pro or a con depending on what you want.
What do you think FF (5dmII) or 65mm phantom is going to give you different from S35mm say, on a Red1MX, or 3.5k down sampled to 2k Alexa? Mind you, if you're not shooting the entire feature at 140fps or whatever the 4k Phantom65mm can provide.
I guess shallower DoF?
That's all I can think of, and that can be a pro or a con depending on what you want.
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
At the moment, I'm only 'looking' for cheap 'better bit depth/color sampling'... I could do with out bigger sensor sizes... attendant costs, etc... (heck even in my still equipment I've not seen the need to move up to Hasselblad 6x4.5 cm sensors... and the attendant $20K... or so...).
It's all good Kholi, and I like experimenting to.
What do you think FF (5dmII) or 65mm phantom is going to give you different from S35mm say, on a Red1MX, or 3.5k down sampled to 2k Alexa? Mind you, if you're not shooting the entire feature at 140fps or whatever the 4k Phantom65mm can provide.
I guess shallower DoF?
That's all I can think of, and that can be a pro or a con depending on what you want.
Here's my thinking:
RED MX @ 4.5K in conjunction with my standard fair of glass (Aka what I can use regularly) would mean using something like an 18/T2.1 as a wide, composing for the 4.5K frame and shooting wide open at all times.
It also means I need to have the space to do that, and for me--no budgets--that's not always possible. The walls always feel closer every where I go to shoot.
The advantage i *THINK* even shooting with a 5D, much better a Phantom65 as wasteful as it sounds, is being able to live in tight quarters and still get an anamorphic like look. The RED MX can be compacted decently, but not as much as the 5D.
So, yeah, I think it's the shallow field and ability to compose as if you were in a larger space. Being able to use a 35mm for a lot of "Wides" would be nice for the right project, where larger subjects and objects should dominate the space versus the world. Am I thinking backward, though?
Also, to do the same thing with a RED MX I think you'd have to go Master Primes on the wide end for distortion control. Am I wrong there, too?
It'd be great to figure out how to really mimic this on the MX .. since that's what I have whenever I want to shoot. lol
Strictly speaking creative, here, not technical for me. Although Color Bit Depth and Latitude are important.
RyanT
Veteran
It's all good Kholi, and I like experimenting to.
What do you think FF (5dmII) or 65mm phantom is going to give you different from S35mm say, on a Red1MX, or 3.5k down sampled to 2k Alexa? Mind you, if you're not shooting the entire feature at 140fps or whatever the 4k Phantom65mm can provide.
I guess shallower DoF?
That's all I can think of, and that can be a pro or a con depending on what you want.
Well your "normal" lens is now something around a 90mm instead of a 50mm. You get much better shape rendition on your wider shots now and not quite as much distortion. I really see that as the big draw to larger formats, especially when shooting the face.
Either way, I really don't think it's that practical considering the stop you'd have to light your scenes to in order for it to even be in focus. Not to mention the fact that I'm sure these large format lenses are probably much slower than their 35mm counterparts...These days we're always shooting WFO anyways and I'm sure you'd be really bummed to find out that WFO is a 4, and you should probably give it another stop so your focus puller has a chance at getting it right.
Last edited:
I can see your point on focus. When cropped to 2.35:1, it's actually not much different (to me) than pulling focus on anything else, and shooting at a 2.8 looks appropriate most of the time.
I should have added that my intent would to always be to show at 2.35:1, meaning composing with guides and adding a matte in post.