Full frame "look"; real or a myth?

KyleProhaska said:
This is similar to why the IMAX format looks so interesting and wonderful to me. Whether people think it's a poor comparison or not, IMAX is like watching a super shallow (most of the time) and super detailed full-frame image with a FOV that's very wide. That's how I've always seen it. You look at The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises and take a look at a lot of the IMAX footage and you'll see a lot of really wide FOV shots, lots of wide FOV and super shallow shots, etc. Crazy looking...
Click to expand...

I agree with you...the full frame cameras don't necessarily have a "look", they have attributes which lend themselves to being shot a certain way. This often/not always leads to the footage created with them having a unique look. The opposite would be a 1/3" prosumer camera- while you CAN back up and shoot zoomed in to create somewhat shallow dof - the logistics of doing so don't lend to going that route.
So while formats like APS C and others can achieve most of the same things, they don't do so as effortlessly. Just my take.
 
As requested, here is another test were I matched the f-stops to get the same DoF characteristics using the D600, I also included matched shots with my Panasonic GH2 taken at the same distance and cropped to replicate the compression. Note: I did not match the f-stops with the GH2.

VW3eT.jpg


BBys0.jpg
 
Really?!!!!

Really?!!!!

Wow seriously?
Please don't try to shoot tests of perspective with macro shots . Mainly because in macro THERE IS NO PERSPECTIVE..
Jeez -there is ton of perspective reference on the tube.
I had no idea anyone would question something so obvious on a professional forum...:-Laugh(DBG):

Here you go-proper test http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1r6ttYT2qww
There is a tiled comparison at the end- done right.....
 
i can offer up this at around the 3 minute mark. it's more about DOF, but clearly shows the principle of perspective when talking about FOV/DOF at inverse focal lengths

 
There is definitely a distinct look. I always show my friends (non-DP's) clips from different cameras, and the only one they can identify 95% of the time is the 5D.
 
Egg Born Son said:
I guess you didn't read the thread, that video is in the ball park but does not address the OP.
Click to expand...
I did read the thread, I commented on it early on. Therefore I read it.
I was not referring to the OP- I was referring to the poster before me that questioned something so obvious as perspective compression. Looks like we took a step back from the "FF look" to questioning the basics of imaging such as perspective compression. And putting pseudo tests to prove it.
That's all. I hope I spelled it out for you now.
If not- I give up...
Sorry for the blunt reply but this is such a waste of time for pros to explain (and having to read through) basics...
Please don't take it personally this is a technical issue I'm explaining..
 
optitek said:
Wow seriously?
Please don't try to shoot tests of perspective with macro shots . Mainly because in macro THERE IS NO PERSPECTIVE..
Jeez -there is ton of perspective reference on the tube.
I had no idea anyone would question something so obvious on a professional forum...:-Laugh(DBG):

Here you go-proper test http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1r6ttYT2qww
There is a tiled comparison at the end- done right.....
Click to expand...

That camera is moving and the sensor size isn't changing. This is an invalid comparison as far as this conversation is concerned.

I'm sorry but your earlier comments were wrong. There is no difference in "perspective compression" due to sensor size.
 
Samuel H said:
in theory, yes, it is hit by many more photons (1.6x1.6x) and so it should give you cleaner high ISO
Click to expand...
We often forget that the surface area of a full frame sensor is more than double that of an APS-C sensor. The 5D3 sensor is 36mm x 24mm i.e. 864 sq mm whereas a 7D sensor is only 22.3mm x 14.9mm i.e. 332.27 sq mm making the crop sensor just 38.45% of the surface area of the full frame sensor.
 
optitek said:
Wow seriously?
Please don't try to shoot tests of perspective with macro shots . Mainly because in macro THERE IS NO PERSPECTIVE..
Jeez -there is ton of perspective reference on the tube.
I had no idea anyone would question something so obvious on a professional forum...:-Laugh(DBG):

Here you go-proper test http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1r6ttYT2qww
There is a tiled comparison at the end- done right.....
Click to expand...

I think you must have misunderstood something, at least in regards tot he link you posted yourself.. The test is to address that sensor size won't affect depth compression. If you do not appreciate it, then skip it, your rude remarks about the test itself is of no value to any form of contribution.

This was about showing the method described by TheDingo:

put your camera on a tripod and take a still photo of a person using a wide-angle and a telephoto lens, but do not move the camera, and keep the F-Stop the SAME. Now take these two photos into your photo editing software and crop the wide-angle shot to match the same image area as the telephoto shot, and lastly adjust the size of the two photos so they display as the same size pixel size. ( cropped wide-angle photo and the telephoto photo ) If you've done this correctly you will notice that the two shots look absolutely IDENTICAL ( the cropped photo will have more grain and less detail ) but the FOV, the DOF, and the amount of image compression will be exactly the SAME.
Click to expand...
 
OK I give up. Sorry.
Was not able to explain.
Perspective compression is a lens property not sensor- therefore sensor size is irrelevant.
Never mind...
Sorry if you felt that was rude....:)
 
this thread is a mess, perhaps the OP can revist/repoint his/her question to focus things a bit more.

Here's something that should be kept in mind throughout this thread:

1: The sensor does not make DOF
2: The sensor does not make perspective
3: A larger sensor does not automatically mean great low light

because....

A: The Lens determines DOF
B: The Lens determines perspective
C: The Lens's creation of the image depends on it's format size, IE; s16, s35, VV, etc..

Meaning...

The sensor only affects DOF and perspective in relation to the size format lens that's projecting the image onto it, you can put a larger format lens on a smaller format camera and get the same image creation, but with a narrower FOV

As for the 'magic look'... like i already said early on in this thread, it's 90% snake oil. Take a t4i and a 5d3, match their shots in a normal light situation, stopped down to hyperfocal, and then do your coke vs pepsi test. the point is that the magic mostly only shows up when talking about low light and/or DOF.
 
Samuel H said:
in theory, yes, it is hit by many more photons (1.6x1.6x) and so it should give you cleaner high ISO
but that is if everything else is the same, which it usually isn't
and it's very easy to test: just shoot with both and you'll see the difference (5D2, 1 stop higher clean ISO than 7D)
Click to expand...

Thanks but I didnt mean cleaner ISO's. I meant: Does the 5D 'gathers' more light at the same F-stop/ISO/Shutter speed as the 7D/GH2? Is there actually a higher exposure at the same settings?
 
Stab said:
Thanks but I didnt mean cleaner ISO's. I meant: Does the 5D 'gathers' more light at the same F-stop/ISO/Shutter speed as the 7D/GH2? Is there actually a higher exposure at the same settings?
Click to expand...

Yes...it does gather more light than the GH2/7d. It doesn't gather more than an FS100 though which is a similar sized sensor to the 7D and GH2 (in video mode) So there are other factors at play in sensitivity than just sensor size. It does contribute, but processing matters as well as the design of the sensor itself. How many MP it has etc.

An example of this would be the Nikon D3s- only 12mp AND full frame- It's VERY good in low light as a result.
https://vimeo.com/11853689
 
Last edited:
pulpfiction007 said:
Yes...it does gather more light than the GH2/7d. It doesn't gather more than an FS100 though which is a similar sized sensor to the 7D and GH2 (in video mode) So there are other factors at play in sensitivity than just sensor size. It does contribute, but processing matters as well as the design of the sensor itself. How many MP it has etc.
Click to expand...

Aah thanks man.

I just got a GH3, and coming from a 60D, I have the feeling I have to turn up the ISO / F-stop more to be able to 'see' the same exposure... I could be wrong though.
 
I would imagine they are fairly close, given the MP and sensor size...it's not far fetched at all to think you might need a bit more ISO on the GH3 to match the 60D- all other settings being equal. From what people are saying the GH2 would need more ISO to match the GH3 at similar settings so that's an example of better processing at work.

To add to this- The cameras designed for video only like a C100, FS100, F3, C300. They use sensors of much lower MP counts (around 8MP) and they're insanely good in low light, with the added advantage the sensors are optimized for video only use. They take the cake for low light shooting...even over full frame DSLRs for those reasons.
I'd imagine a full frame video only system with just an 8MP sensor would be "see in the dark" ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
A full-frame sensor definitely has a different look...and it's also easier to achieve shallow DOF...a fast lens will make it even easier.
 
I do think that the Canon 5DMKII has a "Look" that differentiates it from other cameras. The Photographic Optics 151 discussion above was very informative, but I think that there is another way to think about it. I have always had the philosophy that, "Changing anything changes everything" when it comes to making technical choices and their impact on the aesthetics achieved. There are distinct technical differences between the 5DMKII and other cameras. To me, the important thing about these technical differences is their impact on the practicality of an aesthetic. For example, the large sensor, and supposed greater light sensitivity has allowed filmmakers to take advantage of available light more. Now in exploiting the available light capabilities of the camera faster lenses are often used. You add the larger sensor with the wider f-stops and you have a unique very shallow depth of field that is an integral part of the aesthetic that you are now exploiting for dramatic purposes. A lot of times, in a lot of footage I have seen shot on the 5DMKII, you just end up with a lot of stuff that is out of focus. Of course you can manipulate the DOF on any camera, but doing this takes practical considerations, adding light, changing lenses and so on that ends up changing everything in regards to the aesthetic achieved. To the OP, I think that you might want to think about the aesthetic that you want to exploit from a camera, and whether upgrading to a 5DMKII would help that and would there be any practicalities that might make that a challenge.
 
David, thanks for your comment. 100% agree.

Back to the OP: "So my question. Is there really a distinct full frame "look" that's different from the aps-c look everything else held constant?"

With all respect, there is a difference, just as there is there a distinct phone camera "look" that is different from the aps-c look and a distinct IMAX camera 'look'.
There always has been and always will. The smaller sensor will not hold as much detail as the full frame Mkiii. The 5D will give you a bit more dynamic range, that might matter to your footage. Just as an IMAX will resolve more information. This affects the look, and more likely what you are getting at, the 'aesthetic' that the camera brings to the footage. A good primer on this was the Zacuto shoot out, where even the pros had a hard time telling one camera look from another. You should watch the various segments of that video, which can be found at Zacuto or Philip Bloom's site.

In the 'old' days of film, your 'look' depended on a couple of things, if I can be so bold. One was the film stock. The other was the lenses. (lighting in this thought is being assumed to be constant for this moment, though of course it was a very big variable). Today, the film stock is replaced by the sensor. And each is somewhat different. But whether you *see* or *feel* difference can be subtle and subjective. And the current craze to find old 35mm lenses shows that the debate over the look of certain lenses hasn't abated at all.

It's ok if you don't see the difference. In the end, it's your ability to tell stories in an entertaining way with the tools you have. Film history is full of examples of people doing great work with less than the 'best' gear.

So rent the camera if you possibly can, and shoot some footage and find out yourself! All the best.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top