The Full Frame Look is a Myth. Here's how to Prove it to Yourself

[nyvz]

FF35 has never been "Magic", but it does inherently have greater potential for greater sensitivity, dynamic range, resolution, and shallower depth of field. Not to mention the practical benefit of having a much larger market for lenses than any other format, leading to lenses with better value and performance than any other format. You can stop down 1.5 stops in FF35 to equate the depth of field of S35, but you often can't open up 1.5 stops in S35 to get the look of FF35. Try finding a widely available 15mm f0.86 lens for S35 that gives you the look of a common 24mm f1.4 on FF35...

It's hard to really compare one format as a whole to another since capabilities depend a lot on the actual implementation of the sensor/film/camera/lens, especially since FF35 equipment tends to designed for stills, which is certainly a limitation to consider. But just because most Oscar films are shot on S35 doesn't mean its a better format by nature, it's because of years of being the dominant format for experienced cinematographers because the best performing cinema lenses are designed for it and because larger formats are generally prohibitively cumbersome and expensive. I don't doubt many of those cinematographers would have shot on Vistavision or IMAX if it could fit in their hand and cost less..

S35 is magical. LOL! The only issue I have with smaller sensors like MFT is having to open the lens up to get shallow depth of field that I'm used to getting with APS-C and full frame. In doing so you're hitting the lenses weakest IQ. Also need really fast lenses to achieve it or shoot long but it's not always practical to use a long lens.

Larger sensor also seem to handle low light and noise much better than MFT. S35 is the sweet spot.

I think S35 was a sweet spot for motion picture film. Now that the larger formats don't mean exponentially larger mags though...

 

[jshbckr]

There is nothing special about a full frame sensor. We can set up a Super 35 sensor to look equivalent to the full frame sensor. Can you tell the difference between the 4 images in the link I posted? Super 35 vs full frame. Same lens, different settings to match FOV and DOF. We match a full frame sensor to Super 35 by scaling the focal length and aperture by the crop factor (ISO is scaled by the crop factor squared). Going the other way we divide. What is the full frame look when we can get the same look on Super 35, micro four thirds, medium format, etc? Full frame has the most affordable lens options for shallow DOF, however shallow DOF can be achieved with other sensor sizes at varying costs / available selections. So there's no such thing as a full frame look if all a full frame look implies is shallow DOF. If the full frame look implies something other than shallow DOF that other sensor sizes cannot do, let's see the examples which demonstrate an exclusive full frame look. Otherwise we can simply say shallow DOF (which will have different lens requirements based on sensor size) and perhaps even develop a vocabulary to describe specific shallow DOF which is not related to any specific sensor or lens.

[EDIT- the first Ryan was for Ryan L! Sorry about that!]
Ryan O- I wasn't able to find any examples of the full frame look other than implied shallow DOF. Do you know of any? Shallow DOF can be achieved with the right lenses. The only reason a smaller sensor can't match a full frame sensor for shallow DOF would be lack of lens availability. I can get decent shallow DOF with the 2x (and 2.3x in 4K) GH4 crop sensor and the Voigtlander 25mm F.95. This works out to F.95*2 = F1.9 and F.95*2.3 = F2.2 (4K). Speedbooster is another option. In both cases, still a small sensor, where we're increasing the shallow DOF capability. Your points regarding ISO and lens performance at different stops are right on, however for the A7S higher ISO isn't much of an issue until it's really high- 12,800 for some, for others much higher. My point is that full frame doesn't have any inherent special optical qualities in and of itself. It's really the limitations of the available lenses for the sensor sizes.



I've simplified this as much as I can and provided example images which match what the math predicted. This guy goes into far more detail (it's where I found the math): http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/

But this is where I think you're wrong. You're only working in one direction. You're starting with cropped and then going TO full frame, changing your specs to make them match. Try it the other way around: Let's say you get a lovely shot with a 50mm 1.2 on your full frame. Match the exposure, noise, FOV, and bokeh of the full frame camera using only an S35+lens.

You're even doing math on your lenses and aperture to get the full frame look to match the cropped, showing that you have to literally *change* things because they are *different*. Obviously, yes, there are many areas where things overlap and you can make different sized sensors look the same.

To use your same concept: I could take the GH4 (2.3x crop) with the 12-35mm, at 12mm f/2.8. So to mimic this look on full frame, it would be ~28mm at ~f/6.3. Clearly there is no difference between full frame and the 2.3x crop! =

I feel like you've got to be trolling.

 

[olof]

No one sensor is the "best" or most "magical" in my opinion. They are all great and should be used when appropriate.

In Motion film there was always 16mm and a few 35mm as well as 70mm versions (I know even 8mm).

In photography we had 35mm 120/220 and 4x5 5x7 and 8x10 as well s some ½ 35mm cameras, I have shot with all those formats and a few polaroid ones as well.

If you understand the basics of lenses and image areas, field of view and depth of field relation to f stop then there is no mystery to any of this. They are just different and all great at what they do if used correctly.

In video it is now great to be able to use anything from tiny imagers (GoPro etc POV/crash cams), ¼, ½, ⅔, MFT, Csize and FF. They are all good at some things. For R&G I really like ½" and ⅔" imagers the best, mostly because of ease of focusing and great lens choices.

I really like the Csize for most general shooting. Nice balance of DOF and ease of focusing and huge choice of lenses. And for low light or very shallow DOF the full size is great.

These are all just tools, the art is in telling the story, the craft is in choosing the right equipment and using it properly. And there are no one solutions, different shooters will choose different lenses, imagers, PPs etc. There is no right or wrong or one way to shoot. And that is wonderful, if sometimes confusing to new shooters. I love the affordability and quality of images we can achieve today.

But don't forget the storytelling is the most important part.

 

[HeldvomFeld]

Like others have said, "the FF look" is FOV and DOF - which in many cases can be replicated with a smaller sensor when you do the math. Fast lenses wide open, well you're not going to get that extra stop of DOF and the FOV without a Booster. Same goes for UWA's. FF is just the most efficient way to take advantage of the fast glass or get the actual FOV of a lens since Speedboosters lack native AF capabilities and occasionally have compatibility issues. Its really not a big deal when shooting video because f1.2 is not an ideal aperture with anything moving. But shooting stills is a different animal - full length portraits shot with the 85/1.2 or the magical 200/2 are unreal. Given the fact that its pretty easy to get a sub-$1000 FF body, its a great time to be in the image-making game. That new Canon 11-24 is another one that's going to be something special and difficult to replicate with a crop sensor. Its great to have options.

Well said!

 

[Ebrahim Saadawi]

I don't think anybody is in disagreement here even if it seems so. What jcs is trying to say is that, you ''can'' get the FF look with a smaller sensor, and we're discussing ''how hard'' it is to do so.

Yes you can get the FF look with a M43s sensor, you use a 2x wider, 2x faster lens. How easy is it to do? the fact that you will probably have to own a lens manufacturing facility to make such lens, or at best buy it as a speciality lens for a big chunk of cash.


So effectively, yes FF has a look' and it's never been in shooting long lenses at f8, it's only there when shooting wide lenses and wide open. It's a dreamy aesthetic.


If you have lenses fast and wide enough to recreate the FF look, the power to you...


Actually the disagreement is a bit lingual here, I mean can we call it a "FF look" even when we can technically recreate it with a smaller sensor (hence it's a ''myth'') or is it correct to call it a FF look since it's more readily available and achievable with that format?

 

[nyvz]

Actually the disagreement is a bit lingual here, I mean can we call it a "FF look" even when we can technically recreate it with a smaller sensor (hence it's a ''myth'') or is it correct to call it a FF look since it's more readily available and achievable with that format?

With lenses like 24mm f1.4 and 50 f1.2, you could almost call it the medium format look, too

 

[Andrew Stone]

No one sensor is the "best" or most "magical" in my opinion. They are all great and should be used when appropriate.

In Motion film there was always 16mm and a few 35mm as well as 70mm versions (I know even 8mm).

If you understand the basics of lenses and image areas, field of view and depth of field relation to f stop then there is no mystery to any of this. They are just different and all great at what they do if used correctly.

In video it is now great to be able to use anything from tiny imagers (GoPro etc POV/crash cams), ¼, ½, ⅔, MFT, Csize and FF. They are all good at some things. For R&G I really like ½" and ⅔" imagers the best, mostly because of ease of focusing and great lens choices.

I really like the Csize...

These are all just tools, the art is in telling the story...

Olof's comments resonate with me. I presume what Olof meant by Csize is APS-C sized sensor which is very close to the Super35 sized sensor.

 

[morgan_moore]

One thing - everyone says S35 is the motion picture look. True.

But motion pictures are often made with very posh glass - 16/2 and the like - until recently such lenses were not available to the masses

so actually FF was the best affordable way of replicating the look of S35 and fast cine primes.

as I said above voigt, slrm have rather changed this with some recent lenses that are fast and cover s35 or smaller.

S

 

[wallrc]

This reminds me of the time that I showed up for an interview shoot, my camera (a super35mm) and the other guy had an ex-3. The boss discussed the look wanted, and it was basically super35 at about 85mm with a really shallow DOF, about 1.8 or 2. The EX3 guy said "no problem, I can get a shallow DOF look"...and proceeded to setup at the back of the room.

 

[dustylense]

I'm gonna come from a still shooters aspect.

Ever shot a portrait of a person on 8x10 inch film, 4x5 inch film, 120mm film and 35 mm film?
Lets set up the same angle of view of a slight wide shot of this portrait.

8x10in with a 180mm lens
4x5 with a 90mm lens
120 with a 45mm lens
35mm with a 28mm lens.

All same film speed, all same camera placement, all same f/stop. Will you see a difference? You bet your ass you will. Because of the magnification of the optic.

Many of you know I shoot architecture for my bread and butter. I shoot digital 35mm these days but in my film days I would shoot 8x10 and 4x5. The difference of shooting with a 180mm on the 8x10 and a 24mm or so on the 35mm is night a day for how the room looks. A FOV with the 180mm on the 8x10 vrs the 24mm on the 35 in a room say 15x15 ft and the near far effect and flatness of the room is great.

It's about magnification. You can line up the shots between 35mm and MFT and see the difference of the magnification between the 50mm and the 25mm.

I once got to shoot on the 20x24inch polaroid camera. I shot a portrait of a person and the lens was a 600mm for a normal view and the subject was 10 ft from the camera. Almost a full body shot. Do you think shooting an s35 and matching the FOV would be the same?

It's about magnification of the optic with the near far aspect of the frame.

So is FF a myth? Nope, it's a fact. A scientific mathematical fact.

 

[jimagine]

It's all magic.

 

[photochris]

But this is where I think you're wrong. You're only working in one direction. You're starting with cropped and then going TO full frame, changing your specs to make them match. Try it the other way around: Let's say you get a lovely shot with a 50mm 1.2 on your full frame. Match the exposure, noise, FOV, and bokeh of the full frame camera using only an S35+lens.

You're even doing math on your lenses and aperture to get the full frame look to match the cropped, showing that you have to literally *change* things because they are *different*. Obviously, yes, there are many areas where things overlap and you can make different sized sensors look the same.

To use your same concept: I could take the GH4 (2.3x crop) with the 12-35mm, at 12mm f/2.8. So to mimic this look on full frame, it would be ~28mm at ~f/6.3. Clearly there is no difference between full frame and the 2.3x crop! =

I feel like you've got to be trolling.

This is true. Another thing to consider - while you can get a decent FF equivalence with a f0.95 lens on M43, its not exactly a great performer wide open - the Voigts lose sharpness and contrast at that aperture. Meanwhile f1.8 on a f1.2 or 1.4 lens is pretty pedestrian - especially if you're starting with something like the Sigma Art 35/1.4 or the 50L. And you always have the option to go where no m43 lens has gone before shooting said lenses wide open.

 

[photochris]

This reminds me of the time that I showed up for an interview shoot, my camera (a super35mm) and the other guy had an ex-3. The boss discussed the look wanted, and it was basically super35 at about 85mm with a really shallow DOF, about 1.8 or 2. The EX3 guy said "no problem, I can get a shallow DOF look"...and proceeded to setup at the back of the room.

This one made me laugh. I remember doing the same thing shooting TV news with 3-chip cameras, stand waaaaayyyyyy back and zoom to get some separation from the background.

 

[TheDingo]

...And one more spanner to throw into the gearbox. Shooting Full Frame can take a lot more light if you're shooting at the same ISO.

Say you've lit your room set with 4,000 watts of light and it looks great with the perfect amount of DOF using your GH4 with a 25mm at f/2.8 at 200 ISO.

If you swapped out your GH4 with a Full Frame camera with 50mm at f/5.6 at 200 ISO, you're now going to need roughly 16,000 watts of light to get the same exposure.

Full Frame cameras definitely have the advantage when you want shallow DOF, but smaller formats may have the advantage when you want deeper DOF.

 

[joker454]

To me it's more than just about the look really. I use an A7s for two websites that I own and film for, and some of the basic reasons are:

1) It's large sensor with larger photo receptors works wonders with light. Being a one man army means I have to handle the lighting myself and the A7s makes it simple because it's so light sensitive and gives me a clean image every time compared to smaller sensors. The cleaner the footage, the simpler my final workload.

2) No adapters or speedboosters required, and again this comes down to me being a one man show. I don't want to deal with adapters leaking light, or having their electronics suddenly fail, or whatever other issues they bring to the table. I just want my gear to work 100% of the time hence I stick to native lenses only on my A7s, I don't want to deal with adapters on smaller sensor cameras to achieve similar looks.

3) Sometimes I have to film in a tight room and I personally find I can get the fov/dof that I need easier on my full frame A7s compared to smaller sensor cameras.

4) No math! Maybe some people find this silly, but I like that when I set my lens to 50mm, it's actually 50mm.

5) Strictly speaking perhaps the math does say that the FF look should be the same as on a smaller sensor once making proper adjustments. But I find that you are then using the lens a different away and it sometimes will still look different either because corners are discarded, different fstop, different iso or whatever. So if "look" is defined purely as fov and amount of dof then perhaps, but the final result will still look different to me sometimes depending on the lens.

In the end I don't see the point in fighting it, the A7s is cheap, gives a clean image, works with little light, let's me work in tight quarters, gets the dof I want and works easily for a one man show. So I don't see why I'd ever switch to a smaller sensor personally, it would just make my life more difficult but to each their own, everyone has different needs. I film indoors and don't need 200mm+ so my needs may be orthogonal to yours.

 

[nyvz]

...And one more spanner to throw into the gearbox. Shooting Full Frame can take a lot more light if you're shooting at the same ISO.

Say you've lit your room set with 4,000 watts of light and it looks great with the perfect amount of DOF using your GH4 with a 25mm at f/2.8 at 200 ISO.

If you swapped out your GH4 with a Full Frame camera with 50mm at f/5.6 at 200 ISO, you're now going to need roughly 16,000 watts of light to get the same exposure.

Full Frame cameras definitely have the advantage when you want shallow DOF, but smaller formats may have the advantage when you want deeper DOF.

Except that the actual number of photons hitting the Full Frame sensor in that example is essentially the same as the GH4. So given similar sensor technology the full frame camera would probably still be at an advantage even with the same 4kw light. And in practice, you'd just shoot your A7S at f5.6 ISO 800 and still have more DR (and probably less noise) than the GH4 would at f2.8 ISO200. This is not something most people understand, but f-number is not a measurement of light but simply a ratio of the focal length to the entrance pupil diameter. Effectively, given identical lens systems, the FF35 f5.6 image projected by the lens is basically identical in light quantity to that of the m43 f2.8 image, only it is twice the size (2x the diameter or 4x the area).

So even given wanting a certain amount of depth of field, the m43 system is not inherently at an advantage by being able to light to a wider f-stop. In practice it depends quite a bit on the sensor and system design, but the A7S vs GH4 is a good example of a comparison where the A7S has at least a 2-stop advantage in sensitivity which easily balances any perceived downside of having to stop an extra 2-stops to maintain depth of field, and this is owed partly to it's 4x larger sensor.

 

[dhessel]

I'm gonna come from a still shooters aspect.
I once got to shoot on the 20x24inch polaroid camera. I shot a portrait of a person and the lens was a 600mm for a normal view and the subject was 10 ft from the camera. Almost a full body shot. Do you think shooting an s35 and matching the FOV would be the same?
So is FF a myth? Nope, it's a fact. A scientific mathematical fact.

With the proper f-stop yes in theory it would be the same. In practice building a lens fast enough to match such a large format for s35 may not be possible and may suffer in quality compared to the large format. Using a full frame sensor doesn't give you some special look that smaller formats cannot replicate. Scientifically and mathematically there is nothing special about FF and any combination of FOV and DOF can be replicated for any size of format. In reality trying to match a s35 to a 20x24 inch format would most likely be not practical, insanely expensive, or not even possible to manufacture with current technology.

 

[dustylense]

With the proper f-stop yes in theory it would be the same. In practice building a lens fast enough to match such a large format for s35 may not be possible and may suffer in quality compared to the large format. Using a full frame sensor doesn't give you some special look that smaller formats cannot replicate. Scientifically and mathematically there is nothing special about FF and any combination of FOV and DOF can be replicated for any size of format. In reality trying to match a s35 to a 20x24 inch format would most likely be not practical, insanely expensive, or not even possible to manufacture with current technology.

Do this.

Take a 50mm and a 100mm on a 35FF camera. Shoot from the same spot with both lenses. First shoot the 100mm FF of a person. Now double the distance of the person and shoot with the 50mm. Then take the 100mm and crop the 50mm shot to look like the 100mm FF shot. Tell me if the shots are the same?

Now, if you take a 50mm F4 on a FF and a 25mm 1.8 on a MFT and shoot the same subject, yes, you can "simulate" each others look. But you have to use a faster Fstop on the MFT right? Yep. What kind of lens are you going to use to make the MFT look like a FF shot using an 85mm F1.2? How about a 300mm FF F2.8? How about FF 35mm F1.4?

Now, like I said, shooting an interior on an 8x10in view camera at 180mm vrs a FF35mm with a 28mm is a COMPLETELY different look.

This is elementary stuff guys.

 

[dhessel]

Do this.
Now, if you take a 50mm F4 on a FF and a 25mm 1.8 on a MFT and shoot the same subject, yes, you can "simulate" each others look. But you have to use a faster Fstop on the MFT right? Yep. What kind of lens are you going to use to make the MFT look like a FF shot using an 85mm F1.2? How about a 300mm FF F2.8? How about FF 35mm F1.4?
This is elementary stuff guys.

Yes exactly the point, if you use the right lenses you can get the same look on a MFT as you can FF. Sure there will be cases where you won't be able to due to the extremely fast lens you would need in order to get a proper match but the point remains the same. There is no special look you get from a full frame sensor, it can be replicated on any size sensor assuming you can find a lens to match.

 

[Hunter Hampton]

Full frame is an amateur format, give me 15-perf 65 anamorphic or give me nothing! ; )