Sense of Depth on Cropped Sensors.

[MrJulesFletcher]

I feel that small sensors, or cropped sensors, lose a sense of depth that you get with a 35mm or S35mm frame size. Whilst cropping in, the distortion on the lens stays the same. A 50mm that becomes an 85mm is going to look very different from an 85mm on a full frame. The sense of depth is different, it looks different, feels different. What do you think of this? How much does this affect the audience?

I feel uncomfortable with it as I do when films brake the shutter angle rules or shoot at different frames per second than the traditional 24p. Do you think it brakes that 'film look' we crave for? Not saying that the 'look' is what we want, but more like the 'film' 's advantages, like dynamic range...

Questions come after having shot a few shorts on the Rebel T2i and looking into shooting upcoming projects on the BMCC, taking advantage of it's low cost and 4K Raw and high dynamic range abilities. But the T2i with it's APS-C sized sensor and the BMCC with a close to S16mm sensor is worrying me a lot. Perfection is key to me. I'm wondering if it would be better just to shoot with a S35mm and 35mm sensor or just to stroll along with the smaller sensors.

I am quite new to tech and cameras.. I'm only 17.. So please excuse my lack of knowledge in some areas.
Thanks for any comments and suggestions,
- Jules.

 

[harmonica44]

Well speaking personally I don't mind it, and think the movie is just as watchable. I watch a lot of older movies from the 60s and before so I use to a deeper depth of field. In fact I prefer it compared to movies that I think are too shallow of today, like Side Effects, which just came out. But some audiences may prefer the opposite, and that's just what I like (shrug).

 

[Zensteve]

I feel that small sensors, or cropped sensors, lose a sense of depth that you get with a 35mm or S35mm frame size. Whilst cropping in, the distortion on the lens stays the same. A 50mm that becomes an 85mm is going to look very different from an 85mm on a full frame. The sense of depth is different, it looks different, feels different. What do you think of this? How much does this affect the audience?

You would be unhappy with a T2i APS-C crop sensor, but cool with Super-35mm?

Is "full frame" the best?

Perfection is key to me.

That's a long road to travel.

 

[jax_rox]

APS-C is very similar in size to S35mm, which has been the film standard for quite a while.
'Full frame' comes from SLRs, where the 35mm negative size was actually larger than the motion picture equivalent. This is still the case, and 'full frame' is simply a buzz word. It was designed as a way to ease SLR users into the DSLR world, and allow their lenses to carry over. Whilst it does afford slightly shallower depth of field, and wider FOV, it is very different to motion picture 35mm.
Traditionally, a S35 sensor (which is very similar to APS-C) is what is used in all digital cinema cameras (with the exception of the BMCC, but that's hardly a digital cinema camera as much as the badge says so). I found it odd to use a 5D for the first time and find that when I asked for an 85mm, it actually gave me an image closer to what I'd expect out of a 50mm. I adjusted, but it was odd.

Realistically, there have been plenty of television shows, commercials and feature films shot on S16mm sensors (and smaller!). I don't really see the issue. If highly successful films like Hurt Locker and Black Swan, and TV shows such as Burn Notice, Chuck, Heartland, Scrubs and many more can be successful on a sensor half the size of 35mm, I don't see why super low budgeters should be crying out about sensor size (they're pretty much the only people who do )

 

[WalterB]

Sense of depth isn't only depending on how wide the lense is or on depth of field.

The screen is always flat (when not stereographic), creating the illusion of depth with light, color, perspective (influenced by lensewidth and crop), planes (foreground, background and in between), depth of field and with movement.

The big question is: what is perfection to you?
A depth of field so shallow only the eyes of your main character are sharp?
A lense so wide you can look behind you with it?

If you worry about cropping a 50mm to 80mm get a lense that's wide enough to crop to 50mm.

 

[harmonica44]

Realistically, there have been plenty of television shows, commercials and feature films shot on S16mm sensors (and smaller!). I don't really see the issue. If highly successful films like Hurt Locker and Black Swan, and TV shows such as Burn Notice, Chuck, Heartland, Scrubs and many more can be successful on a sensor half the size of 35mm, I don't see why super low budgeters should be crying out about sensor size (they're pretty much the only people who do )

Well I was told by a DP, that indie filmmakers trying to break out into the world, have more to worry about, and should go full frame. He said that the reason why movies and TV shows get away with it, is because they are already contracted to be released and aired, so they are allowed to have a few short comings, since they are contracted to have their material marketed anyway, and therefore will still make money.

The Hunger Games had such bad shaky cam, that you could barely tell what was going on in some of the action sequences, and the last fight scene. If the movie studio decided not to distribute the movie after it was finished and told the movie going public and die hard Hunger Games fans, that the director of the movie screwed up, and therefore cannot release it, fans would be outraged and they would loose money instead of make some.

We were talking about shaky cam, and he said that Hollywood gets away with shaky cam because the reason of the movie being released or not, is already signed on paper, and their is nothing they can do about it later, if they don't like some bad camera work.

Indie filmmakers do not have contracted release dates, and therefore are alllowed less shortcomings compared to Hollywood. That's what I was told by a DP anyway, during a conversation about if you need full frame or not. I don't know if he's right.

 

[chilipie]

Well I was told by a DP, that indie filmmakers trying to break out into the world, have more to worry about, and should go full frame.

This is so completely wrong I don't even know where to begin. The vast majority of modern cinematic release are shot on either a S35 or S16 sized imager, both of which are far smaller than FF 35mm.

I'm not going to attempt to address the rest of your post; there's informed speculation and then there's this…

 

[Chris Tempel]

APS-C is very similar in size to S35mm, which has been the film standard for quite a while.
'Full frame' comes from SLRs, where the 35mm negative size was actually larger than the motion picture equivalent. This is still the case, and 'full frame' is simply a buzz word. It was designed as a way to ease SLR users into the DSLR world, and allow their lenses to carry over. Whilst it does afford slightly shallower depth of field, and wider FOV, it is very different to motion picture 35mm.
Traditionally, a S35 sensor (which is very similar to APS-C) is what is used in all digital cinema cameras (with the exception of the BMCC, but that's hardly a digital cinema camera as much as the badge says so). I found it odd to use a 5D for the first time and find that when I asked for an 85mm, it actually gave me an image closer to what I'd expect out of a 50mm. I adjusted, but it was odd.

Exactly. For film/video, APS-C is the way to go, if you're trying to match the established look of movies. It's for this reason that I will only buy/use APS-C sensors.

 

[MrJulesFletcher]

Thank you all for your replies, learning a lot here. Considering your different suggestions. I was unaware that S35mm was close to APS-C (I should've looked it up) and I see that frames around S16mm and S35mm shouldn't be a problem, I'm still on stepping up on my learning curve.

Thanks again,
- Jules.

 

[Cracker Funk]

I'm definitely far from an expert on the subject, so if I'm wrong, somebody please correct me. But my understanding is that movies shot on 35mm film don't actually use the full frame -- they use half. So, 35mm movies are actually cropped, too, and that means that the 7D and T2i are actually closer to the look than the full-frame 5D, no?

 

[jax_rox]

I'm definitely far from an expert on the subject, so if I'm wrong, somebody please correct me. But my understanding is that movies shot on 35mm film don't actually use the full frame -- they use half. So, 35mm movies are actually cropped, too, and that means that the 7D and T2i are actually closer to the look than the full-frame 5D, no?

Kinda - 35mm motion picture is 'cropped' or more specifically uses a smaller capture area than the equivalent photographic film, though it's not quite half (perforations on still 35mm are closer together than on motion picture 35mm):

APS-C is very similar in size to S35mm, which has been the film standard for quite a while.
'Full frame' comes from SLRs, where the 35mm negative size was actually larger than the motion picture equivalent. This is still the case, and 'full frame' is simply a buzz word. It was designed as a way to ease SLR users into the DSLR world, and allow their lenses to carry over. Whilst it does afford slightly shallower depth of field, and wider FOV, it is very different to motion picture 35mm.

 

[chilipie]

I'm definitely far from an expert on the subject, so if I'm wrong, somebody please correct me. But my understanding is that movies shot on 35mm film don't actually use the full frame -- they use half. So, 35mm movies are actually cropped, too, and that means that the 7D and T2i are actually closer to the look than the full-frame 5D, no?

Here's a diagram I put together a while ago for a similar discussion…

Full frame stills 35mm has eight perforations per frame, with the film running horizontally through the camera. Motion picture 35mm uses four perforations (or fewer) per frame, with the film running vertically through the camera.

(I should point out that the perforations generally differ between stills/motion picture 35mm, so the film is not necessarily interchangeable.)