Camera sensor and film size explained - From 1/3 inch over super35 to IMAX - Epic Episode #1
Vložit
- čas přidán 20. 06. 2024
- A journey through all relevant sensor and film sizes compared by size - from 1/3 inch to IMAX - with samples.
This is an older video and there a some mistakes in the 35mm variants. Anamorphic processes don't use a super 35 at full aperture but the academy sized negative. Goldfinger etc are shot with ordinary 35mm and not with the wider super 35 (that uses the space reserved for audio track).
1/3 inch - super 8 - 1/2.3 inch - 2/3 inch - 1 inch - super 16 - M43 - APS-C - Academy 35 - super 35 - FF 35mm - VistaVision - 65mm - IMAX
#sensorsize #filmsize #super35 #35mm #vistavision #70mm #IMAX
Please join the ranks of the Media Division:
czcams.com/users/mediadivision...
Instagram/IGTV: mini tutorials, whats cooking, and updates:
/ media.division
Facebook Group: Community, discussion, help... ask everything
/ mediadivision2
MUSIC
To get the music from this episode, subscribe to Artlist.
With this referral-link, you'll get 2 month for free
bit.ly/artlistMD
Media Division Titles: Saving Tides by Chase Baker
artlist.io/song/1523/time-and...
Ambient music:
artlist.io/song/7149/for-the-...
This video was featured on 4kshooters:
www.4kshooters.net/2020/04/26...
The Media Division is dedicated to the art of filmmaking and sharing knowledge about it. Tests, Reviews, Gear, Tutorials, Tips, Tricks, Techniques, Experiments, Behind the Scenes, Experience & Knowledge… for work, for fun, for the love of the craft. For beginners and professionals.
Filmmakers Compendium
MDEpicEpisodeS1E01 - Krátké a kreslené filmy
Great video, incredible quality, best perspective ever given to this topic, thank you very much.
Thanks a lot Tasurincci
@@MediaDivision You bring up some interesting points - but there's one part that seems to be missing. "Effective sensor size". Where using a high quality ($700) metabones speedbooster can take a m4/3 sensor like the Panasonic GH5 which offers 10 bit 4k - and turn it effectively into a full super 35mm sensor (just like the Sony fs700 sensor or the much better Sony FS7).
While larger cameras have other perks - we own both the Sony FS7 (the newer update over the FS700 - which both have the super 35mm sensor) and the Panasonic GH5. We prefer shooting the Panasonic GH5 for many reasons on the day to day projects due to it's compact size on gimbals, overhead shots, even slider shots where we can use just a single tripod versus setting up 2.
From a sensor standpoint - they offer the same depth of field at the same apertures (very comparable) and we haven't found a real difference specifically regarding sensor size.
The thing we have found though is the added benefits of having IBIS (where the camera has optical image stabilization on ALL lenses including high end prime cinema lenses). Most high end cinema cameras we've tested don't have IBIS (in their current generation of cameras at least - they will catch up eventually in future models).
So if you want that larger sensor - it seems worthwhile to mention that the sensor size of your camera can be changed in some instances if you're using something like a speedbooster - albeit there are some tradeoffs and some benefits (like using lenses built for smaller sensors).
Around 5:40 you mention that 35mm Full Frame (36x24mm) from stills cameras like the Canon 5d series, the was a camera that revolutionized the video industry by no stretch of the imagination. We've also taken our FS7 (and an FS700) and adapted them to have the full frame 35mm sensor size with full frame Canon L lenses (high resolution stills lenses) and had fabulous results.
Again - that changes the effective sensor size for even a camera like the FS700 / fs7.
Thoughts?
@@minneapolisvideoproduction8062 Thank you for your input... the existence of speedboosters and their effects are not missing.... they are just not subject of this comparison. This is about film negative and sensor sizes... If you want to know my thoughts on speedboosting the GH5 to s35 and comparing that to an "actual" s35 GH5 you can watch this dedicated episode: czcams.com/video/1T3U0Kkqy1g/video.html
...you can also see how we built a 65mm sensor from a s35 sensor.... that is Alexa 65 territory.
czcams.com/video/HN29l3ouR64/video.html
Of course Speedboosters don't stop at FF and we do own a speedbooster that boosts our MAVO LF to a medium format cine cam. Our next episode will be release until end of the week and shot with that combo.
Coming up also... we are SpinTwinning a MAVO LF to larger then IMAX sensor size... that should be interesting.
Stay tuned & thanks for watching
@@minneapolisvideoproduction8062 also remember a DoF adatpers lol
Speedboosters have their own aberrations. There is a difference between native sensor and enlarged with an additional lens.
Love the subject, but had to stop about a 1/3 way through because that background droning really got to me.
The fact that my Sony RX100iii has a larger sensor than what shot the Star Wars prequels blew my mind. Admittedly they used much nicer lenses than mine.
😂 True true.... and much much better codecs, too. Still, ridiculous.
@@MediaDivision Do you reckon they gimp the codecs on consumer models today to force their usage to remain on the amateur level?
@@muadyussuf5233 no muad… that is for simple practical reasons. Codecs with more information / less compression require a much higher system bandwidth and media speed/size causing an overall way larger, more complicated, hotter, and expensive system. Most "amateur" users are very fine with the quality coming out of theiy cameras. They couldn't tell the difference, don't have the machines to handle heavy stuff, or the skills to handle them. It all makes sense. There is always a camera out there, that has the capabilities you want. Kinefinity for example, just launched a RAW cine cam with a full frame sensor at about $16.000 for a shooting package. If you don't need all the fancy RAW part, a Sony A7s full frame is up on ebay for reasonable price
@@MediaDivision Thanks for the explanation, makes sense! I'll scope that Kinefinity camera you mentioned, I've never heard of it before. Cheers
@@muadyussuf5233 Pleasure…www.kinefinity.com/mavo/?lang=en
Be aware that Kinefinity (chinese manufacturer) is infamous for delivery problems ;-)
I’m purely a stills photographer, and I have to say this is the first moving film video to have me riveted.
Thanks Mark… that is a nice compliment… welcome to the dark side ;-) next stop… replicant eyes… or how to force red eyes in film czcams.com/video/8VqgH3VlnlY/video.html
i dont know why videos like this aren't getting million views in youtube. people should support informative videos like this instead of some "Reaction Videos"..
I wish... IF you find out... tell me ;-)
videos like this aren't getting million views in youtube simply because the percentage of tech minded (in any filed) people among general public is very very small. Casual phone camera users dont even know what is an image sensor or they dont really care. Image sensor size? What is it? Buzzword is MEGAPIXELS hahaha
I normally never comment and very selective in pushing subscribe button. You surely deserve millions in views and subs. Your videos are simply great for viewers with any level of tech. background. Really Amazing quality work Decent and Graceful !
The problem is people are typically complete morons who would rather watch someone watching something than actually take a few minutes to learn something. Watch the film idiocracy, it's an eye opening documentary on where we're headed.
Because its advanced and professional. The two most obvious things youtube is not.
The style in which you present the film/sensor size should be taught to all "film makers" (in school or not). Thank you for a great video.
Thanks Robert... much appreciated!! It is my pleasure
Great video. But I have to make a correction:
Anamorphic is not the same as Super 35. Anamorphic is still technically academy ratio (1.37:1), it's just that you are using anamorphic lenses to squeeze 2x the width of image (to get a 2.39:1 ratio) than you would normally would with spherical lenses.
Until Super 35, the only other lower budget way to shoot a widescreen image was to shoot Techniscope. Techniscope is still the same width as academy, but it uses 2-perfs per frame rather than the usual 4-perfs for Academy or Anamorphic, effectively cutting the image in half, horizontally.
Sergio Leone's MWNN trilogy and George Lucas's THX1138 and American Graffiti were shot in Techniscope. Techniscope was also seen a budget-minded medium because you could shoot twice as much footage on the same amount of film stock, because of the 2-perfs per frame usage.
Anamorphic films like Bladerunner & Alien predate Super 35 by a few years. It didn't become popular until Tony Scott used it in Top Gun, where the camera gear/lenses where small enough to get inside the cockpit, and James Cameron was one of the first and strongest advocates for Super 35, starting with The Abyss, then Terminater 2, True Lies and Titanic.
As for 1.85:1 aspect ratio: I've read that most movies presented in this ratio aren't actually filmed in this ratio, they were still filmed on Academy, but were either hard matted in camera, or matted afterward through projection at the theater.
The Back to the Future trilogy was filmed this way; other than the scenes filmed in Vistavision for the special effects, it was filmed in Academy ratio with the intended ratio of 1.85:1.
As far as I know, most movies with the 1.85:1 ratio have been shot this way. I don't know exactly how many films have been filmed in Super 35 1.85:1 or Super 1.85, since not many filmmakers or cinematographers have made it clear.
Super 35 is mostly known for getting 2.35:1 widescreen image, by using 3-perfs, and by removing the vinyl soundtrack tape located on the left of every frame.
Academy negative is 21.95mm wide. Super 35 is 24.89mm wide.
Anamorphic is unusual: the width of the physical negative is 21.95mm (same as Academy), but because you're capturing twice the horizontal image, your basically squeezing a 43.9mm wide image on this little negative. When you play it at the theater, the projector has to have a de-anamorphisizing lens to unsqueeze the image on the negative to its proper 2.39:1 ratio.
Sorry to sound like a nitpick. Video was great regardless, and you have a great voice for narration.🙂
Great Comment. But I have to make a correction 😝:
just kidding.... this video is tailored for non professionals and I don't want to bore anybody with the aspect ratio details, audio track with, film orientation... That is stuff for industry insiders.
The definition of s35 is very fluent, especially including digital formats. Even in the film world the hight is not clearly defined. I usually just define it as film running vertically in the camera (stills cameras and vista vision running the film horizontally). Same for 70mm... super (Panavision) 70 running vertical, IMAX running horizontal.
I shoot anamorphic and own a couple of lenses.... so I am aware of how it work and how it is projected. Anamorphic does not have one standard squeeze or even film format. Of course, the squeeze and desqueeze can be done in post. The projection of an anamorphic film can be spherical just as the filming can be done spherical and the projection anamorphic.
Thanks for your input
@@MediaDivision Lol, in hindsight, my long comment kinda proved your point about why you simplified your video a little bit. 😄
It is easy to fall down the rabbit-hole in learning/explaining all these different formats in a more specific manner; Super 35 for example.
To be honest, I'm not a pro; I have a full frame digital camera and have done a few videos and done a few weddings and band pictures, and I'm STILL learning.
I don't think I'll ever stop learning.
That is a very healthy attitude... and with this subject, it is even fun to learn. Thanks for hanging man
@@neplusultra8830 BTW, if you want to see how video way beyond full frame looks... I "built" my own Alexa 65 here.... and before you say it... no, it i not the Brenizer Method. czcams.com/video/HN29l3ouR64/video.html
I wish Cameron would have stuck with 16:10 like Terminator 1.
No-one really answers the 'why' in their tutorials. WHY is Super 35 mm the Gold standard? Why do some artists prefer a certain look or sensor size over the other? In this tutorial, you give us a lot of knowledge, but not wisdom. You tell us what the sensor sizes are and what movies used them, which is knowledge. But not 'why' they chose specific lenses over the other, which is wisdom.
You touch on it a few times, but put it mainly down to taste, which isn't really getting into depth about the 'Why'. I am none the wiser after watching the tutorial, I just learnt a bunch of random facts about sensor sizes.
That is why it is important to note, Knowledge tells an artist what sized paint brushes are available to them, but wisdom tells them what each paintbrush is capable of achieving. I really do appreciate the time you put into this great tutorial, and perhaps the engagement factor may improve a lot more when you challenge to answer the 'Why' in tutorials, as that will help your viewers to understand the information a lot better when reason and meaning are attached to the knowledge. Bravo! And best of luck.
This is not a tutorial? It explains how film and sensor sizes relate to each other.
If we would answer the “why” question for each of the show formats… this video would be 10 hours long.
We tackled super 35 in the context of widescreen cinema here:
czcams.com/video/bIhaItLnSR0/video.html
Of course… this is all about technology and has nothing to do with “wisdom” in any definition I like to use. The answer to the “why” question is profane.
super35 is the most economic and available option to shoot on 35mm film… shot with open matte it allows multi aspect deliveries that is compatible with standard cine projection standards… spherical and anamorphic… it is very flexibel and delivers a slightly larger negative than techniscope for widescreen… and therefore a smaller grain and more details. Today, it is pretty much the only standard for 35mm film in cinema.
The substrate remains the same to any other 35mm format.
We could go down the rabbit hole for pages here… why vertical and not horizontal? answer: simpler and cheaper. Why 35mm and not 38 or 25? ? answer: it is arbitrary probably because of machines used in early film production. Why 24fps? We will tackle all that in a special episode in the future.
Our assumption that that depths and detail would improve engagement… well, our SCOPE series about anamorphic shows you that is simply not the case.
Hope that helps and thanks for watching
@@MediaDivision Thank you for getting in touch, and explaining that. It makes a lot more sense, as to 'why' the super 35mm sensor is preferred, you summed up the main points, and I was able to grasp a better understanding as to why the experts prefer it. Bravo!
Sure… we are talking about super 35 FILM (analog) not sensor. In digital, there are less reasons to prefer one format over another. Securing ones investment in s35 glass is one to choose s35 digital sensors (like the Alexa does). A love for vintage photo lenses would be a reason to go FF as these are virtually exclusively designed for FF. Look wise, it doesn’t make a difference with the right lenses. Of course, a larger sensor is potentially more expensive, and has a higher pixel count and or larger pixel.
This is one of the ALL-TIME best videos in (Video Production-Informational) videos ever produced!! Everyone entering Video Production should watch this video. Absolutely fantastic!!
Thanks a lot… rather watch air new ones… they are MUCH improved in terms of script and execution
@@MediaDivision Seriously, you sell yourself short...as a media creator and one who watches a ton of videos (before I fall asleep, LOL), it was very concise, the support imagery was extremely relevant and the flow of the content kept me engaged!! I know how easy tit is after you produce something to "fine tooth comb it", wishing you had done this or that...but this was, in all respects, a 'Perfectly' executed video explaining not just the differences in Sensor Size, but how they have been used and where they place in the history of filmmaking!! At 61 years of age having watched thousands of hours of content, if I could give an award to one of the Ten Best Ever Informational Production Videos, this would be well on that list!!!
Thanks again… but seriously… watch this. It is about 1000 times the effort czcams.com/video/bIhaItLnSR0/video.html
@@MediaDivision Yeah but I'm not sure your are correctly placing this video in the category that it is...its really a "PRIMER", for the video you mentioned above, which is extremely comprehensive in its scope. This Video is compact and concise, perfect for a refresher and an introductory into Cinematic Filmmaking.
Star wars prequels were shot on those sensors as they were the ONLY digital sensors available at the time.
Sony was determined to get into cinema and with digital, as the Sony owner was a huge cinema and camera fan..so they produced the cameras for Lucas.
Sony and Lucas were FIRST, in all ways you can imagine, for premium digital cinema.
This was a deliberate and fully conscious choice by Lucas.
It was all about cutting old Hollywood and their control OUT of the loop, and the second as important aspect, which was --- total control in the digital domain for the entire production, from shoot to display of the image. These were digital films first and foremost, due to the extensive CGI, hence ILM, lucas's company.
The first digital projectors for displaying the results, where the only 4 in existence at the time..which were present in 4 choice locations for the release day of the first prequel.
So Lucas went after Hollywood, and did cut them down to what they are today. He made the major opening strike against the controlled insider studio/media system.
11:26 I flinched when he went there... i'm a fan bruh... i'm a fan T_T
Still didn't make the prequels good films.
And still, the prequels not only had terrible imagery, but also terrible script, screenplay, plotholes, bad acting with green screen every fckn where... are those also a deliberately choice made by Lucas to stop hollywood of making good movies and delivering a terrible one?hahahahaha
What model(s)? How many sensors? And what actual resolutions were those ROTS cameras?
@@webshooter5976 ...really? What did you like about them?
As a photographer these info videos have opened up a whole new can or worms for me ..playing around with different sensor sizes and mounting different lenses on them... Great video as always..look forward to the next one 👍
Thanks Seppy. The dirty secret is, that since digital became dominating, there is no intrinsically different look with different sensor sizes.
While I was searching for film sizes I came across your video because, I was just blown away by that "Beyond IMAX" video. Man your production quality and content delivery is so great!
Thank you so much for these videos. Keep it up!❤
Thanks a lot man… appreciated. Wait for the next one (about to be released). About 20x as good! ;-)
I really liked this video. Very well presented, clear and precise. One of the biggest challenges for a filmmaker buying new camera gear is to future proof his purchase to some extent, especially indie filmmakers who are on limited budgets and can't upgrade that often.
dude your channel needs to blow up. Great stuff!
surely hope so Luis... thanks a lot
This channel is an encyclopedia of knowledge! Subscribed
Glad to have you around Julio!
Really enjoyed that dive into sensor sizes. Super clear and easy to follow.
I think we're now in a place where we can choose a specific sensor & lens combo to really dial in what we want to convey. From full Imax to putting anamorphic on micro 4/3 and all the options in between. An amazing time to be making films.
Thanks man… Definitely, and it only gets better.
You are absolutely captivating ! First video I've seen from you, I just hit subscribe and I was blown away by the fact that you have less than 10k subscribers. I truly am impressed by the quality of this video and I'm on my way to watch all the other ones. Thank you !
That is very kind of you Maxime... glad to have and entertain you 😉
Love the quality and presentation of this video
Thanks a lot man!!!
Thank you very much for an amazingly well put together and highly informative video!
Thanks a lot Luc.... much appreciated! Thanks for watching
You're by far my favorite creator on CZcams, your content is well delivered and packed full of information. Great great great content!
Thank you my dear Sir... that is motivating..... !!!!
Another fun video and the best of NUMEROUS videos I have seen covering the same subject. Thanks.
thanks a lot Manny!!!!
I love large format aesthetics. There´s just something what adds value to the shots. So thats why I would like to see bigger sensors in the future with cinema cameras. Of course that means more expenses.
Same time I think that smalls sensors like MFT is not going anywhere because of the versatility.
I want to thank you for you´re work also. Easily CZcams TOP 10. Don' t change anything!
Thanks a lot Erno.... that is very motivating!!! you will be happy to know that I got the MAVO LF... with a speed booster you are in large format territory. One of my next projects is anamorphic large format ;-)
That was GREAT! Best video I've yet seen on CZcams fully explaining Film Formats and Comparisions!! I spent my career as a Professional Photgrapher so I know a bit about it as I've used Poloriod, 35mm, 645, & 6x7 cameras. I've done a 180 and moved into 4K with my GH5. In my mid 60's, healthy, living on Vancouver Island wereas the most important thing is weight and portability. I love the MFT system for that. I beleieve there's much more of a distiction in format quality in a single frame or image than is noticalbe from a film or video clip of a different size and format, especailly in the larger formats. One things for sure, most people don't ever notice the differences unless it was badly shot, aka... lighting, focus, fps!
I have just upgraded to a 32" 4k monitor whereas I now see 10 bit colour and 4 time the Res. I did before. The quality in which you view all these size formats and with new tech such as HDR, Brodcast standards, future proofing your work all play an BIG PART in where we go from here.
My question to you is: ON YOUR HRD TV AND 4k MONITORS ARE YOU SEEING A BIG DIFFERENCE IN BOTH IMAGE AND HDR IN 4K 10BIT COLOUR QUALITY WITH YOUR GH5 & EVO CAMERAS??
Thanks Richard... I kind of move in the opposite way. Having worked in broadcast I come from 1/3 CCD and (the then massive) 2/3 over MFT to now s35mm and having a preorder to my first LF film camera (Mavo LF)..... Funny, isn't it. You are certainly right, that the format is one of the lesser important ingredients in a good image (photo or film). It is (and will aways be) the amount of work, expertise, and creativity you are willing to invest in an image.
To your question... as all my monitors are 10bit it is hard to tell if that alone makes a difference compared to 8bit, I dare to say no. HDR is a different thing... 1000nits is not a lot but it makes a difference already. At this time grading for HDR is like riding a mad horse. You never really know how and where you going to end up. It is a steep learning curve and standards in workflow and delivery are badly needed. For all day live, rec709 is still king. 8bit is sufficient for the output but of course, 10bit is needed for acquiring a gradable image. My dogma is, that I grade for where I (hope) my contend ends up.... so, for TV commercials I judge color by the TV and for CZcams I judge by the 32 main screen. It is important to have a good calibration and the TV running through a I/O box (not the OS) like a Blackmagic DeckLink card.
Look forward to what you do next 🍻
@@MediaDivision Solid point "My dogma is, that I grade for where I (hope) my contend ends up.... so, for TV commercials I judge color by the TV"
We have a 4k TV we preview work on as well to see just how saturated and oversharpened stuff for TV will look whereas web content can be pushed a little more.
Do you have any links to videos you've published in HDR?
We have a mix from GH5 with native m4/3 lenses up to the FS7 with Speedbooster which makes for Full Frame 35mm sensor size (effectively). When you're stopping the lens down, there really isn't much difference. But wide open - you definitely have to apply the crop factor to your depth of field as well. So a 1.2f full frame on a 1.5x Super 35mm FS700 will act like a 1.8f on a Full Frame 35mm. A 1.2f on a m4/3 like the GH5 (2x crop if not speedboosted) will be like a 50mm 2.4f on a FF.
Once you calculated both the F stop and Focal length, there's really not much at all of a difference sensor sizewise.
@@minneapolisvideoproduction8062 Just some experimental stuff... we are not solid in grading HDR... as CZcams is not in delivering the same. Here is a very short sample (only works in youtube app on smart TVs that support HDR10) czcams.com/video/twnlbUADdhs/video.html
If you don't see a difference with your cams... thats all good. I see litte difference between my boosted Gh5 and my EVA1 except for low light performance and detail. Now.... the MAVO LFs RAW files..... that is something else.
Sorry for the very late reply but I just saw this. Human vision is limited and with typical viewing distances and screen sizes -- except things like IMax -- it's hard to see a difference between HD/2K and UHD/4K. Similarly it's rare to notice much difference moving from 8 bits to 10 bits per channel. BUT... originating in 4K or higher has a lot of advantages in terms of cropping, precision of green-screen work (because chroma is typically half-resolution in at least one dimension), and the subtle advantages of oversampling.
Likewise, 10-bit sampling is advantageous since in post production you're likely switching between RGB and YCrCb, and the extra two bits helps prevent loss of precision when converting back and forth. In fact, you need more bit depth (more than 10 bits) if you're shooting raw, since our vision is sensitive to about a 1 percent brightness difference, and at the lower end of the brightness range in raw you need more bits to catch a 1 percent change.
You guys are so special in the youtube world.....
Regarding our topic in the video... I think with the improvement in the processing power.... we should expect gigantic jump in the sensor sizes unless the engineers failed to keep the lenses small....
Thanks a lot. Well, optics are bound to physics... a large format lens is necessarily much larger, if point brightness (f-number) is supposed to be the same. I don't expect a jump to 645 for mainstream cinematography... it simply doesn't bring much to the table
I really appreciate you making videos like this
Glad you are entertained... Thanks for watching Jlove
This is an excellent explainer video for different sensor and film sizes. Why on earth doesn't this have more views?
Thanks Sean.... it seems like viewer people are interested in this then one might think ;->)
I’m not a professional photographer or videographer but I love movies and a big nerd about movie formats including film and digital. For me, as much as I love large formats such as 5-perf 70mm and 15/70 IMAX, there’s something nostalgic that I love about true 2:1 squeeze 2.35:1 anamorphic scope. Maybe it’s because we’ve had decades of anamorphic films and when the industry moved onto digital and simply cropped the footage to 2.35:1 scope ratio from a Super-35 sensor, everything started looking flat, though technically this is pretty much the same as 2-perf Techniscope and there are many great films filmed in this format. In the end, I think it’s not all about what format or sensor size used but instead how the filmmaker utilizes the format they have.
Absolutely agree with everything.
@@MediaDivision Since we're on the topic of anamorphic, that reminds me that Fox once experimented with large format anamorphic photography with Cinemascope 55, 8 perf 55mm film, on two films: Carousal and King and I. Anyway, my question is that since digital has taken over as the standard medium for filmmaking and the companies have been experimenting with larger sensors such as Alexa 75, sooner or later we might be seeing movies filmed on medium format sensor sized digital cameras or perhaps even one day on a digital IMAX camera with a sensor size of 15/70mm. That would be interesting.
@@vangmx I am working on a digital "Ultra Panavision 70" lens boosted to an LF sensor. If you are into that.... stay tuned ;-)
All you do is brilliant. All you do is Worth it. Never stop
Thanks a lot Verity… it is really not about if I want to carry on… in the long run, it will be if I can. This endeavour has to earn a significant part of my income in a near future, as it takes up a significant portion of my time. Glad you enjoy
even if this is almost 2 years old video, it is great, found this channel with video about f0.7 lens, and started watching everything You have, amazing content!
Thanks a lot couch potato, I would stop right here and not go further back ... we had to start somewhere
@@MediaDivision well with enough time on my hand will go over everything You created! :)
I think one major factor is that SOOO many content creators think that the 35mm Full Frame is the final answer. Due to this, TONS of content creators are developing on this gear. I think this will start bleeding into other forms of more main stream content soon enough. They are also becoming the main focus of the mid to high end market so they are benefitting from leaps in technological advancement and the costs are starting to come down a little bit as evidenced by the Sony camera line. I think APS-C will see a jump fairly soon if it gets legitimatized by a pro line. The m4/3 is a great sensor but manufacturers have less incentive to make strides in advancement.
Just my opinions though lol
I think that LF in many forms will come for sure... to the prosumer market. In the "practical area" the sizes will grow little and improve with other technology. As always... time will tell.
First we need to get rid of the "analog" digital camera. By that I mean the digital camera that is still made to be analogous to a film still camera in too many ways. With film, yes all things equal a bigger frame meant a better quality photo. But with digital sensors it's not that cut and dry. Especially when the camera is used for video. Formats like MFT already have an advantage of camera-lens matching so they plug 'n' play across brands. With sales plummeting you'd thik that the big names would get smart and work together on something really fresh like an APS-C standard that's interchangeable across brands. And if somebody started making bodies with form factors and features more for video than stills, watch out!
One suggestion to the industry: A MFT camera less than $1000 made for video and shaped like an old Super 8 camera. Every noveau-dilettante would scramble to get one!
Quality work done Decently and gracefully. It is my first ever 'subscribe' in many years just because of your presentation and composure. Watching your videos is a nice visual experience in addition to the content you present. Thanks.
Thanks a lot Kibakobo... that is very nice to say. Sorry for the late reply, I must have overlooked the notification.
This is by far the best piece of instructional work on the topic I've ever come across. Bravo.
Thanks man... appreciated
The chart would make a great poster for camera geeks. :)
But ist MUST be large format ;-) to size it is just a Postcard
@@MediaDivision maybe 10x size!
@@Alexrocks1253 Or 16x9 meters
@@MediaDivision perfect
Why is Super 16mm with 12.52 x 7.41 bigger than 1 Inch with 13.2 x 8.8?
because shit happens
@@MediaDivision I see ...
Those "x inch" sizes come from the CRTs that were originally used for recording television material. It's a measure of the *outside* diameter of the CRT. The image is recorded inside that, but some area is lost to the thickness of the glass. It's a weird standard to keep around since the tubes haven't been used for a while now.
For the same reason why your 4K cinema camera is not equal to 4K film scan. The sensors are measured against the delivery method for filmstock, and not the actual resolution of the filmstock. That's why film is future proof and digital cameras are not. Later seasons of Law&Order for example were shot on 16mm for SD delivery, but the HD reruns still look spectacular compared to Arri 65 native content. If we all upgrade to 8K TVs one day, most of today's shows will look horrible while those old Law&Order episodes will still look crisp and clean.
@@ScribblebytesWorldwide You can scan film in 8K, 16K or even higher, if you want. At some point you just scaling up the resolutions of the Filmgrain itself.
I worked a little bit with old film and a lot of prints that were shown in Cinemas(!) have a resolution lower than the first iPhone. No format is absolutely future-proof.
This video blew my mind away. Great production I must say. Subscribed!
Thanks Alejandro… nice to have you. Check out our newer videos, our production value want up a lot since.
best explanation ive seen so far!! amazing
Thanks man! Glad you like it.
Very interesting :)
Thanks Epos… very much appreciated
Thank you for providing well structured, scripted CZcams content.
A discussion on sensor size would certainly be interesting now that we have so many different formats available-and in many price classes. I see many discussions go wrong pretty early on, stating that a larger format has a specific "aesthetic", where there is in fact a very large overlap with smaller formats depending on how you lens the cameras and what the appropriate f-stop is; it's a question of matching FOV and DOF, which can be done over a significant range of comparable focal lengths between a small and a large sensor.
But I do think that there are undisputed benefits of larger sensors, such as a larger area to capture light, and less risk of distortion, since there is less 'bending of the light' going on. Good stuff-keep it coming!
Thanks Andrée.... my pleasure. I would say that larger formats have their own aesthetic but you are certainly right, that you can emulate them (with more or less hassle). Quite often you are stuck with a max distance to your object (aka wall) and only a wider lens will give you the FOV you want and it's hard to direct from faaaaaaar away. Same for DOF. LF gives you very shallow DOF without ridiculous f-stops and there negative side effects. Just like you said... less banding going on... less glass (speedbooster).
I will try.
Yes. It can very well be that in order to convert from a larger sensor to a smaller one, you end up needing a lens that doesn't exist (depending on the size difference between the sensors and physical limitations you mention, like shooting distance). But I still maintain that, shooting from the same position, there are many common focal lengths and apertures where you could create the same image with a S35 sensor as with a 65mm sensor. This fact then proves that there is no inherent difference JUST due to sensor size. Then again, as you go wider (increase FOV) and open up the aperture (decrease DOF) you'll run out of existing lenses to use on S35.
I'm sure you've seen the nice work Steve Yedlin has done on format conversion and resolution with his many examples.
I too prefer to shoot on larger sensors. Perhaps it's the effortlessness with which you reach the desired look? I also don't think I've seen anyone look at pixel pitch and the possible effects it has-if any at all-on rendering of micro contrast and what not. Take care.@@MediaDivision
Yes, I know Yedlins stuff... but if you maintain the same distance and FOW you have to go wider on s35 with obviously will give you a different look and distortions... thats all I'm saying. If there was no real use to larger formats and that everything is more or less simple to do with s35, why did they come up in the first place? The concept of a speedbooster (even implemented in a cinema lens) should have been out there long before the arrival of 65mm negative.
Weeeell.... now I'm not so sure we're talking about the same thing anymore. And this is why I prefer to talk about FOV (not focal length).
If you maintain the same shooting location for both formats and setup up both cameras with the same FOV, then you will end up with totally different focal lengths, but the SAME PERSPECTIVE. Not different. And that is key.
And if you want to end up with the same DOF you'll need to convert the aperture too in order to get the same blur circles.
One example would be a 50mm lens at f11 on Alexa 65 would equal an 18mm lens at f4 on S35. These two configurations produce the same FOV and blur circles. Yedlin's article on lens blur goes into great detail here, with examples. If you don't agree with what I'm writing, I highly recommend you check it out.@@MediaDivision
@@AndreeMarkefors If you shoot just the difference from M43 to s35 you already (same camera lens distance FOV) you are at 18mm with M43 about 29mm on s35. The 18mm will show quite obvious lens distortion while the s35 will not… same does apply from FF to LF etc. Of course that could be corrected… but that would decrease the FOV
Este es el video definitivo sobre formatos de sensores!
Hvala vam!
Just getting into video, this video has been very helpful. I realize it is 2 years old, but it is still amazing information that is clear and concise. Thank you.
totally our pleasure Chris... good luck on your journey
To comment on the question featured. I think cameras will continue to become smaller as technology grows. What BeastGrip and Moment (lenses) are doing for Cinema is awesome.
High profile directors are using them more in personal projects b/c they know telling a story is far more important than 100mpx sensor or a $40k camera.
The idea of cellphones surpassing DSLR and Mirrorless cameras is all but inevitable through software and few accessories. There's places where a cellphone can go that bigger camera can't. Cost, Quality, Speed, Convenience all lean toward cellphones.
The day cellphones figure out low light it's going to be a different ball game for companies like Nikon & Canon.
Saying no, never is like when Cowboys assumed cars wouldn't replace horses or airplanes to hot air balloons MFT to APS-C, Film to Digital, etc.
The world needs you to do cinematography for features and TV series. You're brilliant.
Thanks a lot Kent! Please tell someone that can help with that 😆😆
@@MediaDivision I'll do my best! Also, it would be amazing if you could do something on the BMPCC 6K and putting together a rig. Me and my co-creator buddy are planning a cinematic comeback, and we are very inspired by your portable lighting package and all your other videos.
Thanks man.... well, we don't have access to a pocket 6K and we are unlikely to get one. Don't you find "rigging" videos terribly boring? Our next couple videos will certainly tackle much broader and more glamorous subjects. Good luck with your comeback
Thanks man! Very informative and visually pleasing!
Cheers Li.... glad you enjoyed
Great Explanation! Thank you for making this!
My pleasure Yosep… thanks for watching!
Cinemascope/anamorphic could have been discussed under the Academy aperture section, not the Super35 section. When the widescreen format wars settled down in the 70s, the vast majority of films were either academy aperture cropped to 1.85:1 or "scope", that is, academy aperture projected with 2:1 anamorphic expansion giving a screen aspect ratio of approx 2.35:1.
Super35 was an alternative way to create a 2.35:1 widescreen film without anamorphic lenses. An optical blowup was made resulting in a standard "scope" print. This final print was identical to any other "scope" print delivered to a theater. Oh well... it's all a moot point now that film is gone.
Great presentation and so easy to follow and understand, thank you for this amazing content 👌🏻
My pleasure Nasser.... thank you!!
This is such a great video. Well done explaining from small to large. Taught me things I thought I knew but didn't.
Thanks Tanner.... Glad it was something for you!
Amazing video! Keep doing it, with this quality!
Thanks Leone... I'll do my best!
People are going to film school to learn this stuff. Amazing video!
Thanks Elvis... I thought you where dead?!?! Stay around... we are our own school here
And sometimes not as well taught. I learned about it, but not in as much detail.
Please do a video on explains codecs, prores, raw, etc!
I might in the future... it is just a little dry as there is little opportunity to explain the subject using moving images --- containers, patterns and math
@@MediaDivision right got ya. i do think it could be beneficial if you could find a way to do it in layman's term. I think a lot of people are worried about their resolution and gear but forget how important that codec is going to be when you want to do anything to that footage. either way, great content.
@@mid-realm Thanks man... have a great 2019
Best Video I ever seen on youtube wow GREAT thanks Media Div
so nice of you... thanks a lot!!!!! I will have to try to get even better to break that record.
Thank you! This was great to see it diagrammed so clearly.
You're welcome Sean!
A few things that has always bothered me about the arguments usually put forth for film sizes. At least since I saw PtA's The Master I've wondered what was really gained with shooting a bigger film.
Resolution. You can get enough resolution from a 2/3 inch sensor to cover most cinema screens. While people talk about the cheapness of Episode 2 and 3, a lot blame the cameras. And the same with Michael Manns digital work. But then we point out that Fincher shot Zodiac on a similarly sized sensor. And the same cameras from the dreaded prequels were used in BBC's Planet Earth... And noone complained.
Image width... Yes but just put a wider lens on it and noone will notice the sensor was smaller.
Distortions. A matter of taste. But sufficiently rectilinear lenses are nit hard to find on most systems.
DoF... Again. You'll have no problem finding lenses that can select focus on parts of eyeballs... The question is, do you really want the "nothing in focus" look? And besides... Most cinematographers for over a hundred years have strived for more DoF, not less. The only ones that are this obsessed with blurry images are videographers...
Color, yeah... But people like Nolan have a habit of grading the image so it looks like two strip technicolor anyway so that's not really an issue.
The only real advantage I see in favor for big formats is photon gathering. It is much much easier to get a clean signal out of a big area simply because you have more photons to work with when the area is bigger.
Another factor that sets the IMAX cameras apart is their sheer size and noise. Ensuring the camera movement is almost always steady and the sound is pretty much always post synced. But that can easily be replicated as well on lesser systems.
I am willing to bet that if you shot an outdoor scene on a GH4 in its 4:3 mode properly and cropped it to 1.43:1 pretty much noone could tell it apart from a full sized IMAX negative when projected as a 2K DCP... Which is the best way most audiences will see the results anyway.
So you've just done a great job in defining why one might choose on sensor size over another. If it doesn't make sense to you then it doesn't matter. However, to others that difference, though subtle as it may seem, may make all the difference in the world; and may be all it takes to separate one film from all the others. The amount of time money and expense spent on subtle difference may sometimes appear excessive. However, it doesn't seem as absurd if we keep in mind that filmmaking is not just a technology, but it is also an art.
The flaw in your argument really lies in the fact that its the combination of the characteritics you laid out that make LF unique. Resolution doesn't really matter for distrubution as 99% of people won't see the film in IMAX film release, but in IMAX Experience, which is two 2K projectors. LF resolution helps more with acquisition.
This is part of the problem. I love movies and I love seeing them in all different formats, whether it's the texture and grain of Jackie or Carol shot on 16mm film or the vastness, detail and colour of Lawrence of Arabia on 70mm film. Quentin Tarantino's The Hateful 8 was of course distributed and seen in cinemas using digital projectors across the world but if you saw the Roadshow version on film, you got that bit extra that made it more special and impressive. Same thing with Kenneth Branagh's Murder on the Orient Express. I saw that movie both in 70mm film and 2K digital in the cinema and the difference is vast.
It may be cheaper and more convenient to use smaller lenses with digital cameras and a lot of people won't care. But if you've seen Dunkirk in full IMAX 70mm, there's no way you could ever make an argument that it's pointless. Heck, even watching that movie or older 70mm films on 4k blu-ray at home on my TV looks more impressive than just about any 2K digitally projected image at my local cinema. So long as there are people who care, it's worth it.
One final point would be that cinemas are having to compete against streaming services and TV nowadays in a way they've never had to before. You can't beat the competition by using the exact same equipment. It may be more expensive to make but if you want to give people a reason to go to the cinema and to give them an experience they can't get anywhere else...
PS I'm aware this also turned into a minor point about film vs digital as well but lenses matter too.
The difference between your channel and all the others is the competence that you transmit and the level of information: is like going from a middle school class to an university one.
That is a nice compliment.... thanks a lot. I would say this is very basic stuff ;-)
What a great channel..love how you share your knowledge for everyone who wants to learn thank you. people like you makes this world better thank you again
Thanks so much Luis... very kind and motivating.
and sorry for the late answer
Great, informative and professional. Thanks a lot!
thanks man... appreciated!
each task - with its tool. Content is more important than form.
While I generally agree with you, an extrapolation would mean that a pen and a pice of paper is sufficient for any story. I love moving images and I'm a perfectionist.... so I will always enjoy a quality image that is as well crafted .
@@MediaDivision ok, but cinema is a team work. Every part is important. Need move to balance. If picture dominate under plan it is video art, not cinema ;-)
@@VFed0seev Absolutely... with some minor exceptions: czcams.com/video/PirH8PADDgQ/video.html
I love the layout of the video, reminds me of the short "Powers of 10".
1/6 is definitely not relevant 😂😂😂 and should never been
sorry, over.looked this for a longer time...... I remember "Powers of 10"... seen i first when I was like 11.... maybe it did influence me to do this?!?!?!?
Wow, thanks for the graphic explanation! Great!
Sue thing... glad you enjoy.
Thanks for the video that way absolutely amazing and comprehensively informative!
Cheers mate... I'm glad you enjoyed... greetings to the OZ
I wonder when curved sensor would happen and change the optics and perspective completely.
good question, it would completely change the lenses game toward tiny simple lenses with great quality. The have been prototypes I think
@@MediaDivision Sounds interesting.
It doesn't affect the perspective.
But it would require a specific curvature (radius of the sphere) for any given focal-length. Hence only works with fixed primes. Unless you have a flexible sensor that can change curvature...
@@MediaDivision You will still be limited by the surface quality and bulk atomic lattice resolution of the lens material and coatings itself. The reality is that this is the major quality aspect of all lens types. size of lens, surface quality of lens, quality of coatings, quality of bulk material, level of refraction, and this, combined with light wavelength and it's interaction with refractive index, and so on. Some benefit can be found with curved sensors and such ....but a good lens, with all things equal... will always be huge in size.
@@vanderlubbe7791 Well, your eye has a tiny lens with stunning quality, right? One of the reasons why it can be so compact is the curved "sensor" it serves. Also, there can be radical new technology. I am not sure if future lenses would even be made of glass. I read an articel about using nano tubes to bend light. A lens is more like a grid of nanotubes on the sensor then.
social media diarrhoea .....
… isn't it ? ;-)
absolutely :)
Totally
Social media diarrhea? 30 years ago, I threw TV out the house for lack of quaily content. Each channel added took a share out of the virtual total budget of a society to create content. Numbers of viewers became a dominant factor and artist/performers became disposables. Let's take "social" out of the Durchfall. A 3-chip native 1K projector and blu-ray collection of movies with great story telling, deeper concepts, excellent photography - does not grow significantly in recent years. Movies more and more become introductions to, or origin-stories of, video games. Meh.
Have now watched a couple clips of this channel. Very high quality.
Thank you for this.
Great explanation with great examples.
my pleasure man!
THANK YOU for this beautifully clear, concise and precise video. It's the best video I have ever seen that explains film/sensor size *and* aspect ratios in one fell swoop. You have a new subscriber, keep up the excellent work! :-)
Thanks Jyoti... and thanks for hanging!!!!
are you german ? :)
Very cool high quality video.
Yes... well spotted (not to hard I guess 😉).... thank you Luca
@@MediaDivision well I had to watch about 3 or 4 videos to be sure 😁 you speak very good english. Im german too so I know what makes the German english dialect but I think others wont notice ;)
Looking forward to new videos. Love your videos.
@@MediaDivisionDein Englisch ist perfekt.
@@MediaDivision Hab mich schon gewundert... Dachte an irgendwas europäisches, aber dachte nicht direkt deutsch ':D
@@dorfschmidt4833 Ich bin mit einer Amerikanerin verheiratet… und glaube mir……… nein! ;-)
Can I make series with the BMPCC 4K and sell it to Netflix?
You can make a series with every camera and sell it to Netflix.... and many shows are made with "inferior" cameras. IF you are producing a "original" Netflix series (so, a series that was produced by/for Netflix), then you have to use a camera from their infamous list (partnerhelp.netflixstudios.com/hc/en-us/articles/360000579527-Cameras-and-Image-Capture) or discuss it with Netflix. If your family name is Coen, the rules obviously don't apply to you.
@@MediaDivision High Flying Bird (on Netflix - released in 2019) was filmed on an iphone and actually was a solid film. Great angles and I kept saying to myself "this was filmed on an iphone? - what lame excuse am I using about my camera?"
Tangerine (which was at Sundance) was filmed on an iPhone 5s (disclaimer - I've never seen Tangerine).
Very nice the Visual Timeline with the different Sensor Sizes! Great work!
Thanks man... glad you enjoy
just stumbled across your channel and this was an EXCELLENT video. subscribed!
thanks man....!!!! Glad to have you here!
When you say The Hateful 8 was shot on 65mm film, most moviegoers aren't going to know or care what that means. When your movie is distributed in 1080p or even 480p, it doesn't really matter what format you shot it in because most of the detail is going to be lost by the time your audience sees it anyway (especially since an increasingly large portion of them consume media almost exclusively on smartphones and tablets). The only real benefit of the larger format is to the filmmaker, because the greater resolution provides for a greater degree of flexibility when you want to manipulate the image in post. But as far as the audience is concerned, it makes no difference if you shot your movie in IMAX or on an iPhone.
I wouldn't go quite as far..... but of course, the trend to the small scren diminishes the large formats. I always wondered, why the high end scans and reproductions of IMAX and 65mm didn't look much better in their UHD incarnations.... and we tried to find an answer here:
czcams.com/video/oIhCyPaDP6g/video.html
Every comment has said this before, but the video was excellent. Every single student of cinematography and visual arts should see it.
Thanks a lot J C.... very kind of you to say.
Brilliant as usual, thanks!
Always.... thank you
Thank you. Excellent content. The size, and shape, and quantity of sensors will continues.....
cheers ismael!
This video is just like POW... Honestly its great to hear such wonderful information articulated very well. Thank you for this. :)
Thanks man… glad you liked it!!!!
I did not know that cinematographers sometimes use different sensor/film sizes throughout a movie. Now i need to get more information about that topic, thanks for the input! :D
Happens all the time... here are some examples:
The Dark Knight (IMAX/super35mm)
Interstellar (IMAX/ 35mm anamorphic)
Dunkirk (IMAX/65mm)
Shutter Island (one scene) (65mm/super35mm)
The later part of this episode has some direct comparisons:
czcams.com/video/oIhCyPaDP6g/video.html
Thank you for this awesome video! You rock!
cheers Giovanni.... that is very kind of you!
For a guy playing catch up, (just retired my 500 Hasselblad) this is great stuff. I have shot video with my 5D with a red stripe lens and would prefer it to a poorly executed 4K image. Superior knowledge yields superior products. Thanks for this video!
With pleasure Sidney
Excellent explanation of the film formats and sensor differences. I especially appreciate your question about the resulting aesthetics from all these different.options.
Thanks... just to be clear.... formats don't really look intrinsically different. It depends a lot on circumstances.
@@MediaDivision Exactly although there are instances where the format differences do make a difference but they have to be extreme in my opinion. Back in the 80's a friend of mine was working for an ad agency where they were filming a 35mm music video for Diana Ross, I believe, and they wanted a home movie look for some of the scenes. My friend who was an assistant editor at the time happened to have a Super 8mm camera that he took around all the time. They took a chance on him and the resulting footage turned out to be the highlight of the finished video. He became the go to person for the shaky hand held look in the music video and advertising genre much to his artistic frustration although the pay was great. Some of his frustration was that the agencies got nervous using 8mm home cameras and made him film in 35mm which they would then dupe multiple times in 16mm to try and get the grainy, low detail look of 8mm. He felt he wasn't getting a chance to show his talents as a straight filming 35mm cinematographer.
This video should get an award
Thanks… I am all for it ;-)
Wow, What a wonderfol video!
Thanks death.... glad you enjoyed!
Extremely well made, it's clen and clear :)
Thanks a lot Skace.. much appreciated!!!
Very informative video about sensor size and the history was really fantastic. Thank you for sharing
Thank you Violet... my pleasure
Fabulous content, on par with America’s best film programs but free.kudos!
Thanks a lot RGP……… I wish ;-)
Perfectly presented!!!!! Thanks!!!!
Thanks man.... very nice of you!!!!!
This is the most comprehensive video I have found on the topic of sensor sizes. Thank you so much for your work!! Just found your channel, and you have a new subscriber. I look forward to exploring your work.
Thanks man.. we came long way since this one. Watch some of our new stuff and this looks….. pale?!? Thanks for beeing around Jim!
wow! You did such a great job on this video. Thank you! :D
Thanks man……… appreciated!
Amazing video, as always.
cheers man
Thank you my master for this great video. None but you can explain so good and dig so deep into this topics.
I've never shot video with something larger then aps-c so I can't join the debate, but as a photographer it's easy for me to say that size metters and larger is better : )
wish you the best
My young Padawan… no "to small" there is …… remember, that 99% of the best movies ever shot used a negative/sensor not larger then ASP-C… out there go you must and film until your images sing ;-)
a really good video on this topic. thanks!!
Thank you J K
Thank you very much! This is the video I was looking for. 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
Always always Aurelian.... thanks for hanging
beautifully explained.. thank you
Thanks Jozef! Glad you think so
It's a good idea about ... the evolution and impact of the sensor's dimension on the approach and brainstorming of the big screens. Good presentation! Congratulations! I will follow you very carefully. You are a professional unlike the crowd of amateurs claiming to have some pseudo opinions
Thanks a lot Costel! I hope I will live up to that high bar ;-)
I like this video, great work men, first time I see this information so detailed, your the best! 👍🏽🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆
Thanks a lot Ricky… glad you enjoyed!
This is an awesome channel. Great videos.
Thank you Trevor! Glad you enjoy!
"Im not a fan of the prequels of Star Wars. I don't know who is." shots fired!!! lol
Thats where I draw the line in the sand ;-)
Very good very buddy. appreciate the time and effect you put into it
Thanks Craig! Trying my best and I'm glad you are entertained
great video.clear and interesting
Glad you like it! Thanks for hanging Mauro!
Just superb this. Thanks!
With pleasure… thanks for watching
Amazing video keep Up the good work 👍🏻
Thanks Maan ... will try!
Very good video. It has explained the whole size of sensor very clearly. This video is so informative.Thank you very much.
Thanks a lot Bobby! Glad it was something for you… thanks for hanging around!
Wow amazing information to get a better understanding of the whole sensor size discussion in a big picture. CZcamsrs nowadays ask for fullframe for talking head Videos and m4/3 is blamed for being too small and noisy. That habit ridiculous after watching your information I am happy with m4/3 even more. Thanks!
Pleasure.... it really depends and there is no such thing as a „full frame look“ really. M4/3 is fine for almost everything
Unbelievable..I see this first time. And very interesting. Superb. Great thanks to share.
That nice.... thanks a lot.... if you like this, we have a lot of crazy stuff here ;-)
@@MediaDivision thank you a lot for this information.