LARGE FORMAT LOOK TEST: ALEXA 65 vs. ALEXA MINI

[NorBro]

Yeah, it's difficult to match a 20mm f/1.4 lens on a full-frame sensor, and/or impossible if you used something like a 14mm f/1.8 (Sigma) on a FF sensor (but that's only an example to just prove a technical point as it's not a realistic, everyday scenario).

But there's also available space/creative choice that's often overlooked, undervalued. Even if you can match the sensors, sometimes being able to get wider when closer is useful (and the opposite applies in having extra reach, which I often see MFT users mentioning).

But I also think some of the 65's shots in the comparison look a tad more blurrier - so they still aren't producing a perfect match, IMO.

 

[Guest]

I'm certainly open to (and interested in) other views, but from all I've seen the empirical evidence and theoretical underpinnings suggest Yedlin is correct. Clearly there are practical limitations than make it difficult (if not impossible) to recreate certain full frame aesthetics on, e.g., 1/2" sensor cameras, but once you get to S35-sized sensors those limitations seem to be gone.

No, you are correct. The primary push for FF35 video is likely monetarily motivated by lens and camera manufacturers.


I am just triggered by people quoting Yedlin, as most of the time they are sort of using Yedlin to push they're own views on others.


I think Yedlin's observations were motivated to give creative freedom and choice back to the cinematographer, not create a dogma.


You were not doing anything of the sort, but by this point, I am just triggered by Yedlin references in general. my apologies. It's not you, it's me.




1. Where larger format cameras are nice, is in the extra resolution without as much compromise in noise and dynamic range. They generally offer improved tonality and detail over 2K counterparts. Even for HD streaming, as can be seen in the YouTube example above.

2. Another area is lens character. Larger format cameras allow sharper and charactered looks, as the larger area is less critical. The same lens can look sharper or softer when cropping in to a smaller area. So, a vintage lens on a larger format camera has an extra sizzle and vibe.

3. Thirdly, the perspective is not so important, but having sharp shallow DOF wide lenses is a bit easier on larger sensors. As Norbro mentioned above.




But none of this really matters without creative and intentional decision making. Why did Steve Yedlin shoot knives out on 65mm film? I don't know that the movie needed it. but hey, he did it. A gimmick he was forced into? Maybe. Or was it his choice?

Much of the benefits of film going from smaller format to larger format applies to digital as well. Cameras like the Black Magic 12K show the limits of cramming pixels into a s35 sensor with current technology. An Alexa 65 with 3x's stitched AlevIII 2K sensor combines the advantages of Alexa, but with gorgeous detailed images. A 6K image that likely "shames" RED, Canon, and Sony 6K competitors.

IDK how many people have seen the higher quality large format prints of Lawrence of Arabia vs the HD stream or 35mm print, but it is breathe taking. The wide shots become infinitely more interesting (though not necessarily better framed), and the faces and eyes sparkle with life and realism that makes the film feel like the actors are still alive.


I get the resistance to being told you have to shoot on a s*%tty camera because it has more K's or a larger sensor, but I do not get the resistance to alternative methods of image capture.


Again, please forgive me, I am not saying any of this about you, just explaining part of what triggers me about Yedlin references.

 

[drboffa]

I get the resistance to being told you have to shoot on a s*%tty camera because it has more K's or a larger sensor, but I do not get the resistance to alternative methods of image capture.


Again, please forgive me, I am not saying any of this about you, just explaining part of what triggers me about Yedlin references.

No worries! I didn't think you were going after me—and it seemed pretty tongue in cheek, either way.

But yes, I agree completely that really what Yedlin is arguing is for cinematographers to realize they have lots of control/choice and it isn't down to just K's or sensor size or film/digital. Unfortunately so much of what I hear from people with a vested interest in selling cameras/lenses/movie tickets is dogmatic (and just wrong): e.g., the current refrain around the "full frame look". But—as NorBro and you have pointed out—there are legitimate realities that *can* result in different results in the final image. So much of this nuance just gets totally tossed aside, even by directors and DPs who I would expect to know better. Sure it's faster for people to just say "full frame look" and be done with it, but that shuts the door on so many interesting conversations around what it actually means to work with sensors of different sizes (if and when it means anything at all).

Ideally we'd be thrilled to be so spoiled for choice when it comes to image capture (and many of us are)—the options available in sensor size and resolution from 1/2" up to 65mm equivalent are truly staggering. Admittedly, this is assuming you've got the budget for it, but even at the lower end the range is astonishing.

I think I also look forward to the day when smaller sensors and lower resolutions can be appreciated as aesthetic choices in the same way that S16 can be appreciated as an aesthetic choice. Imagine a day when shooting on a 20+ year old F900 can be appreciated on its artistic merits �� (I'm only partly kidding).