Blackmagic is LAUGHING at your TINY sensor // Large Format Look Explained

[@shagral]

SUPPORT THE CHANNEL - www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=59SGM8XHA464G

[@cristiat]

This organization's page is broken.

[@shagral]

Thanks for spotting, fixed it!

[@MeekelDubya]

I’m so glad Camera Conspiracies mentioned you! Good stuff!

[@shagral]

Thanks! Glad you found my channel.

[@cameraconspiracies]

My pleasure buddy! Great video as always. Though it won't stop me from pursuing a Fuji medium format camera to vlog with.

[@JoATTech]

🤣🤣🤣

[@mixdown78]

@cameraconspiracies ironically he is SHOWING the Medium Format 3D-Popp Look in all comparision Shots starting at 12:18 :D :)

[@GaetsKrop]

I just realized you were the one referencing that channel in a previous video (Yes, I'm subscribed to your channel and I like each video I watch)

[@shagral]

And I will be there to witness it on the off chance that it might be the perfect camera.

[@Ezrabastian]

Pentax 26k camera is coming out early next year. Get ready to get 💩 on!!

[@Sethmotley]

It’s funny how these popular cinematographers say cameras don’t matter but still they use the most expensive camera for their projects.

[@Mokofeej]

Facts 💯 not to mention with lenses that cost more than my car lol

[@pc1234asdf]

DAMN BRO YOU JUST SLAYED THE INDUSTRY WITH FACTS

[@shagral]

make👏facts👏great👏again

[@IsaacNewton-i2cmoresmart]

Sorry about that lol 😂

[@evenhandedcommentor6102]

@@shagral That line could get you deported from the USA.

[@Daniel-Six]

Great work. So sensibly expressed. I still shoot on a venerable pair of Nikon D3300's... because I've never been able to convince myself it's worth upgrading!

[@shagral]

Thank you!

[@MWB_FoolsParadisePictures]

FINALLY JESUS. Spent the last several years being gaslit by DPs and film school professors ever since I learned about crop factor. Thank you for this video. One thing I will say is that I've read how higher res recording reduces aliasing quite a bit, so if you're shooting tiny details that might cause moire like grass, fencing, or busy patterns on clothes, going to 12k+ is the way to go, even if you're going for a softer image (for which you'd then use soft lenses, filters, or post effects).

[@carlosdlguerra]

“We should start using degress and not mm” THANK YOU. this was such a confusing point when I started getting into cameras and it feels like a relic we should ditch.

[@fbimagesphoto]

I shot some videos with my GFX 100, the footage had wonderful notes of burnt oak which I couldn't replicate on my R5ii!

[@shagral]

🤣 that's because Fuji stores the GFX cameras in rum barrels for three years before rehousing them into a new medium format cinema camera!

[@fbimagesphoto]

@@shagral I knew it! That's why my GX100 smells much better than the newer GFX100 ii. The 2019 vintage was pretty special

[@MrJayclas]

Burnt oak is the only way to get true cinematic footage!

[@andreaseinzmann6277]

It’s likely not about the gear, but rather about the person behind the camera 🙂

[@andreaseinzmann6277]

​@@MrJayclas In the end, it’s all about marketing and storytelling. Well said!

[@Wildridefilms]

To me, the "large format look" is achieving shallow DOF on wide to ultrawide shots. These are already possible on FF more so than medium format with lenses like the Sigma 20mm f1.4, 24mm f1.4, 35mm f1.2 and the Laowa 28mm T1. So FF currently has the large format look that no other system can match. Very comprehensive and scientifically accurate video, which is rare in the cinema gear circles.

[@Kliffot]

Yes but many FF lens covers the 44x33 MF sensor, so it can be pushed actually even further :)

[@hotcamp5363]

@@Kliffotwhat do you mean?

[@steviestl2269]

@@Kliffot in reality, few FF lenses even sufficiently cover the 36x24mm FF sensors and are just corrected in camera (vingetting & sharpness). Expensive, high end (cine) lenses are a different story...

[@2trilltochill]

The large format look is this but in film days paired this with ultra sharp resolution. Medium format film having an immensely shallow depth of field with a high resolution is very noticeably different to super 35 film. On digital the resolution is already so crisp that there isn’t a point in my opinion.

[@Kliffot]

@@steviestl2269 Nowadays the correction profiles are included within the adaptors. When it comes to video, corner and edge fall-of is often seek ( like the anamorphic look ) or the image is cropped because of format ratio. Anyway it's a special look not for everybody.

[@georgec89]

Throw a Mitakon Speedmaster 1.0T on an MFT sensor and you will make miracles happen.....if the story is good enough. I've seen movies that were shot with the best equipment that looks more boring than videos on KZbin filmed by one person. It's important to you know to work with the format and also treat the image in post. Enjoyed your video so much, it's equally entertaining and informative!

[@shagral]

Thanks man!

[@markbrown1609]

just googled that, good looking lens, what do you put that on

[@Emariess]

Excellent argument and totally agree with all your points however I feel you’re missing the point about dynamics: Having a larger format sensor or larger format film gives you more dynamic range because it can capture more light and detail in a single shot. Think of it this way: a bigger surface area collects more light, which means it’s better at picking up all the subtle differences between the brightest highlights and the darkest shadows. With more light coming in, larger formats tend to have less noise, so those dark areas stay clean and detailed instead of looking grainy or muddy. Plus, the transitions between light and dark-like a soft shadow on a bright wall-look smoother and more natural. Imagine the light information like pixels If you only have two “pixels,” you’re stuck with just two shades to work with-pure black and pure white. That’s a pretty stark, unrealistic image. But if you have 1,000 pixels, you can show 1,000 shades to describe the image Suddenly, you’ve got a smooth, detailed gradient instead of a harsh jump between light and dark. In short, a larger format helps you capture a scene with more depth and balance, making your images feel richer and more true to life. You can even see it in the example comparison videos you shared.

[@ssoqboss]

Yes, but high dynamic range is also quite misunderstood. In normal day to day use monitors can reproduce only 6 stops, and same printed images do. To go to 8 stops which is max for JPEG/sRGB you need to turn brightness to max. Modern HDR devices can give you 9 to 10 stops. So there is no practical reason to have more dynamic range in camera, maybe 1-2 stops margin to adjust missed exposure. But 12 stops is what any modern full frame sensor provides. Even if you have say 16 stops on larger sensor you can't wrap it into 8 stops jpeg without getting cartoonish HDRish look.

[@Emariess]

​@@ssoqboss I think there’s a key distinction being missed here. It’s not just about how many stops of dynamic range a sensor can handle-whether it’s 14 stops or 16 stops. That tells you how well the sensor deals with extremes like bright highlights or deep shadows, but it doesn’t explain how much detail is being captured within those stops. This is where sensor size makes a big difference. To explain it simply, imagine one pixel with 14 stops of dynamic range. That pixel can record very bright and very dark areas without clipping, but it’s still just one piece of information-you only know the average light level for that single point. Now, if you add more pixels, you can describe the transitions between bright and dark in much greater detail. Larger sensors typically have more pixels, but more importantly, those pixels are also larger, meaning they gather more light (more photons). This gives you cleaner data, with less noise and more subtle gradations. Think of it like painting a gradient. A small sensor might handle the same range of light and dark as a large sensor, but the large sensor has more "brush strokes" to show the smooth transitions between them. It’s not just about resolution or output-it’s about capturing richer, more nuanced information in the first place. So, while computing power and processing help manage dynamic range, the fundamental advantage of a larger sensor lies in its ability to gather more light and deliver greater dynamic detail within the range it captures. That’s what I’m referring to when I say larger sensors display more dynamic range in practice not just the albity to handle things like clipping better which is often touted as a selling point in camera reviews.

[@FrankGlencairn]

I like the way you think - you are one of the few sane voices, when it comes to cameras and glas.

[@shagral]

Thanks!

[@osagiethegreat]

I came here expecting a typical unobtainable gear shilling video and instead learned so much. You've forever changed the internal mathematics that I have for FOV and achieving bokeh amongst other tidbits along the way. I appreciate these rabbit holes. Very nice show.

[@shagral]

Thanks man

[@DanLiveOnUTube]

Didn't know I was taking this class today but I am thankful.

[@photoangelov]

I'm offended.. that this channel has so few subscribers!

[@Augnos]

Excellent video loaded with pure facts and no bullshit. An incredibly factual approach to talking about gear with this high of a production value is such a breath of fresh air on KZbin.

[@shagral]

Appreciate the kind words!

[@CaleMcCollough]

You convinced me. I did not believe you at first, but you busted out the math and got me. You're wrong about the stabalization. I use the Dynamic Active Stabalization on my ZV-E1 to drop in 1.34x for my APS-C cinema lenses. It's a different look. It also eliminates camera shakes and can save shots.

[@simike3592]

4.7k Subs? This channel must blow up ASAP! You covered so many dilemmas I've had for a while in this one video, Thanks!

[@shagral]

Glad you liked the video. Send the video to a couple friends, that would help a lot, thanks!

[@nicklaytonUK]

Mind blown. It was only until you got to the 200% view did I start to see the benefit of full frame or larger, but thanks for this extremely scientific analysis of the camera - lens - format trinity.

[@shagral]

Cheers Nick!

[@AnnaShaverdashvili]

What an amazing video! The intro was absolutely fire 🔥-great job!

[@shagral]

Thank you my #1 subscriber 🖤

[@JHuffPhoto]

Excellent video. I just want to point out that all of your concepts also really apply to photography and the discussions around M4/3, APS-C, Full frame and MF. I finally went to FF for the improved AF and lens selection but I am 94% photography and 6% video. Oh and it is just a hobby for me. Thanks again for the video.

[@guinhill]

And for us m43's shooters, the same look can be gotten if you take the math further 70mm T5.6 » 35mm T2.8 » 17.5 mm T1.4 , while still keeping the camera position the same. Since there are 17mm f/1.2 lenses, this Exact look can be gotten with a ~€600 lens. and a €400 Camera @ 4K , and with the Low T you don't have to worry about high ISO

[@BeardedGeezer]

I'm mostly a stills photographer, but dang, I found this video to be very enlightening. Good work!

[@joseperalta6235]

I agree with the "old habits die hard" part, I have been shooting DSLRs since the EOS 5D OG era, anything above 200 ISO looked like trash then, 20 years later i still stick myself to the native ISO, despite newer cameras being capable of dealing with high gain with little noise.

[@MasamitsuKai]

It's funny you've uploaded this now because I've recently gone done this rabbit hole myself. Just through work experience I've always held this idea that larger format had this special look, until I realised that actually I was just being wooed by the shallow depth of field. That being said on the same set of lenses, you usual do get better performance out of the lens stopped down, so it's kind of nice to use my cine primes at T3.2/T4 instead of T2.1/T2.8 and also get that extra funk, especially if you can't afford to get a different lens set! For me, focal reducers while maybe not actually affecting the look directly, do still have an impact on the image.

[@wkmpellucid]

Love this - brings back memories of my lectures and assignments when I was full-time faculty at RIT's School of Photography.

[@shagral]

I wish I had lectures on this stuff back in uni! Thanks for watching ;)

[@RalphRaphaelPhotog]

THAT WAS A MASTERPIECE!!! THANK YOU

[@shagral]

My pleasure

[@Rirena29]

That's insane. Just starting photographing with an APS-C camera. I always wonder can I achieve the same look as FF cameras. Now I got the answer thanks alot.

[@WillChao]

I clicked totally expecting another misleading video on this often confusing topic but nope you nailed everything, for once. Bravo!

[@shagral]

the fake-out clickbait works!

[@josefsaelzledop]

I know Manuel a little. He conducted this test as part of his thesis. I also received the entire thesis from him at some point, but the blog article is sufficient for understanding. He studied at the HFF Munich, which, of course, collaborates closely with Arri.

[@shagral]

I thought as much, still very impressive. And I think he brought a huge value to the industry by conducting this test specifically in real time, so do pass on my respect and gratitude if you get the chance ;)

[@Tamajyn69]

I own 2 Sony alpha full frames and i've come to the conclusion that S35 is the sweet spot for me, especially with speedboosters 🤷🏻‍♀️

[@Yupthereitism]

This may be the best camera channel on KZbin

[@shagral]

gee, thanks!

[@Murmeldyrful]

Soulpatch - check Tiny leather vest - check Thick Eastern European accent - check

[@flyingfox2005]

When The Revenant came out everyone went crazy for the large format look - the common refrain was "it was only a look that could be achieved using a 65mm camera". Then the truth came out. Only 13% of the movie was shot using the Alexa65 - the rest was the XT and the M. The Revenant was a S35 movie.

[@fto3367]

According to Wiki it was 40% on the 65.

[@flyingfox2005]

@@fto3367 according to the DP being interviewed in the ASC it was 13% - I will go with that over Wiki

[@OlaviMurto]

​@@flyingfox2005somehow my comment disappeared. Anyway, didn't find either in the wiki, but another site did quote Lubezki as saying he used the 65 for 40% of the time, and that ot wasn't used for handheld since it's too heavy. Also I'd assume the 40% is a first estimate, and time used to shoot each take can affect the feeling of how much the 65 was used. Those shots might have taken more time. But upon reviewing it could be that he realized only 13% of the film is on the 65. Also does he count by runtime of by amount of shots used? There's multiple ways to quantify this, and I can't say which is the best one.

[@flyingfox2005]

@@OlaviMurto I've seen it stated in interviews they he preferred to use the XT and the M because of the lenses he had available (Master Primes and Leica Summilux-C) sand I quote: "As I operate and do so much handheld, the best camera for me at the time was the a Alexa M" The January 2016 American Cinematographer has full article has all the details: Search for The Revenant Alexa65 13% and it will bring up an article on EOSHD which has a long detailed quote from the article. I have also spoken to someone who was on a shoot with him and they asked him directly about the usage of that camera.

[@flyingfox2005]

@@OlaviMurto there is a transcript of a section of the American Cinematographer article on ESOHD. It lists the percentage and the main cameras used and why the XT and especially the M were the main cameras - camera size and choices of lenses, Master Primes and Leitz cine lenses.

[@arantesFilms]

Subscribed. Nerdy camera related stuff. Awesome channel

[@shagral]

Thanks & welcome!

[@amermeleitor]

Wow! Real quality content in KZbin! Thanks for the video!

[@davidroseman3287]

Thanks!

[@shagral]

thank you!

[@markthompsonmedia]

Artfully cutting things down to the facts! Two things popped into mind while I was watching. The camera might be a good choice for someone currently shooting Panavision film who wants to move to a digital workflow. The lens and camera position that they are familiar with, simply flow through to the URSA 17k so they can keep their style without too much bother. Second. I shoot medium format stills and the stand out thing for me is the image quality when I come to print. The larger sensor supports some high performing pixels. And for me that is important. On a side note, the URSA 17k momentarily caught my attention in a mild economic sense because I wouldn’t have to buy any new lenses at all. My existing medium format lenses are compatible with the URSA 17k.

[@MrKwamek7]

25:24 since Lubezki used both the Alexa 65 and Alexa XT for the Revenant, I'm curious which shots are done with each and whether he sees any difference that helps him make the choice between them

[@shagral]

There's a lot of BTS around from that film. Those "in your face" shots are usually Alexa M

[@phrasalsyntax]

I guess panoramic and establishing shots where more resolution is welcome were probably done with the Alexa 65.

[@flyingfox2005]

The Alexa65 was used for about 13% of the Revenant.

[@claudiocsp1]

I've been marathoning your videos over the past few weeks, and I absolutely love how you connect the dots and explain the technical details behind why many mainstream beliefs in videography are flawed. I'm an amateur photographer (and occasionally an amateur videographer) who’s learning a lot from your content. A few years ago, I shared some of these myths (like the 4K and full-frame gimmicks) on my website, but your knowledge far surpasses mine, and I really appreciate you sharing it here. I believe money represents a portion of our lifetime exchanged for purchasing power, so if someone spends money on unnecessary gear, they’re not valuing their time at all. Keep up your great work bro!

[@shagral]

I appreciate the kind words, thank you! 🙌

[@tw.Slash21]

I thought that cameraconspiracies should know about your video. So it was quite nice to watch it to the end 😎

[@DanielNorling2.0]

Thanks

[@shagral]

Much appreciated!

[@bananasandbass]

This is friggin funny and informative. As someone who works in a large camera store and also shoots video and photo, I love it when people can debunk all those vague subjective terms like the wine tasters.

[@thirstyvagabond329]

I've understood parts of this from other sources but this is an excellent consolidation. Much appreciated.

[@ggdfggdfgdffgfddg34]

Friend, I realized the main advantage of 65mm sensors is that lenses for a 65mm sensor are easier to make sharper than for m4\3 because the larger the sensor, the less diffraction, at least in the center! That's why the sensor itself doesn't give anything, but it's easier to make sharper optics for a larger sensor than for a small one, that's why everyone switched from m43 to Full frame!

[@lucasvivante8988]

M43 cameras are cheap cameras, so lens manufacturers make cheap lenses. Lenses made for s35 cinema camera are not less sharp than for 65mm

[@ggdfggdfgdffgfddg34]

@lucasvivante8988 unfortunately the 4/3 system is up against technical limits, if you take laowa argus, as you can see aps cinema optics are almost the same size as 4/3, which is up to 65, here you can make a small lens with a very wide angle but high aperture. the quality of the optics will still be better!

[@sammorganmoore]

You are correct that big things are easy to make. If you can grind a lens to 1/1000mm accuracy then this error is 4 X less on a large sensor than a small sensor.

[@psysword]

Buy leica mft lenses and you’re good to go

[@TheNathanMChannel]

Some devious prankster stole the sleeves right off this man's motorcycle jacket.

[@Bryce.Padovan]

Another absolute banger. Brilliant work mate. Really appreciate the lesson and the way you present it!

[@shagral]

Cheers mate! Glad you liked it.

[@OlaviMurto]

Instant like and sub! That was the best explanation of the whole subject I've ever seen. Although I think you missed one aspect on why this myth has survived: film. In film cameras, larger film size instantly equals more resolution, so bigger definitely equals better. And I reckon that line of thinking has moved onto digital sensors, even though the two don't automatically correlate in digital. DPs think big sensor is like big film, and for a big production you need that even though you're shooting on digital.

[@spensersakurai]

Glad to see you on here. keep it up!

[@shagral]

Thanks Spenser! 🙌🏻

[@energieinfo21]

Great disassembly of the swirly knot of myths and facts! Thanks for the clean explanations! I always think in equiv focal length. And I will add equiv aperture in my considerations. We live in big times, because a good FF and APS-C mirrorless camera with two lenses are comparable to one cinema lens in price but give you effectively 4 lenses-camera combinations. My tiny EOS M50 is APS-C but has a crop 4k-mode which converts it to a "mini-sensor-cam": 1:1 macro will be 1.5:1 macro and DOF is easier to achieve compared to APS-C or FF.

[@thesushifiend]

Wow. I’m not a filmmaker but an amateur photographer who happened to study photographic and electronic imaging sciences at university in London back in the mid 1990s. So I have a good understanding on the relationship between sensor size, lens focal length, aperture and camera position on how an image will look. This is by far the best video I’ve ever seen which explains that relationship and debunks some very commonly believed myths. Now, if only I could get the world’s photographers to watch this so that they might finally have their eyes opened!

[@gurratell7326]

Great video! You got a lot of good points in here! Though I think you missed one key point, and that is that the thing that started this "medium format look" is simply because of optical quality. Building an medium format 2.8 lens is that has a well controlled image with little optical flaws is easy, while on a smaller sensor building an equivalent well behaved f1.4 lens is quite a bit harder, hence why medium format shots tends to look just better (unless you prefer objectively badly behaved lenses like anamorphic, but that's offtopic). This has been the case since a veeery long time, except nowadays of course if you're a big Hollywood DP that can get the best modern master primes with huge glass that behave almost perfectly at any aperture. But when it comes to modern Hollywood the sensor size nowadays is mostly used for marketing, which was SO clear when Oppenheimer was released, they used the "IMAX" word so many times just to hammer in to peoples minds that it's something so magical with it that you HAVE to go see it in the best available IMAX theatre there is. Yeah sorry Nolan, you sound like a boken record.

[@zebius4157]

Back in the film days it was image quality for the given aspect ratio via a function of negative size because for the longest time, you'd have to use 2x anamorphics on 35mm film in order to get the widescreen aspect ratio with a good grain size as you could shoot 2 perf but that was really grainy. The problem with using 2x anamorphic lenses on 35mm back in the day is that it had a fuck ton of aberrations that while nowadays are aesthetically pleasing for us, were a pain in the ass to work with, especially with effects. 65mm allowed that widescreen aspect ratio while working with spherical lenses or at least, smaller squeeze ratios for really wide aspect ratios with lesser aberrations. which while we live in a world of lenses like master anamorphics nowadays or rear anamorphic adapters back in the day, you could argue it's moot, this is purely hindsight thinking as there were in fact periods of time where such lenses didn't exist. Nowadays its truly moot for you can crop without losing much image quality anyways, so aesthetic is the factor now, which does fall back into the points talked about in this video. Also, i will defend Andrew (the green knight dp) saying that as he was talking about using the tokina cinema vista 18mm t1.5 (which he refers to as a 16mm) for which given its coverage with its aperture, there is no readily available equal as to align the already fuckass maths for to get an exact 35mm equivalent, you'd have to reach for the vantage one 14.5mm t1.0 which not all rental houses that have the vantage ones have, also it's way more expensive (which wouldn't matter for that film but ya know), and it still wouldn't be as wide, and it's arguably technically worse. And yeah it's crazy, but I'd argue that going lens first and making the camera selection work around it is just kinda productions work nowadays, isnt that the entirety of going for anamorphic over spherical? Also you can't really generalize it by saying you can do the same on full frame with super 35 lenses because get this, not all lenses are equivalent to eachother. lenses, whatever format they may have, will have different character to them. You may think im dripping in subjectivity but this is filmmaking, which is an art we're talking about, so i hate to tell you this, but its inherently subjective. Also, you were soooo close with the closeup bit but you missed a part of it, that being the shallow depth as because you are using longer focal lengths to get a similarly wide fov, youd get a shallower depth when and only when, you are so up close and opened up as if you're stopping down, then yeah of course you can get the same aesthetic. Now i agree that the rectilinearity argument is bullshit especially 1980s onward where you lots of new lenses for super 35 and full frame that absolutely mogged larger format lenses because of the lack of innovation. Also, that aperture bit is why I think zooms are okay for most people to use. Also "moving photograph" well yeah, and it's awesome nerd, why is this actually a bad thing if the intent isn't for immersion on the look level? Shouldn't the immersion happen from the story anyways?

[@stephenrochester6309]

Incredible work you’ve put into this. I’ll sleep better tonight.

[@RandomBrendon]

🤯 this completely blew my mind, so using the same principle, i can also change my focal length using the same camera sensor and still get the same depth of field i would just need to divide the bigger focal length by the smaller one which will give me a fraction and then multiply it by "longer" lens Aperture or T stop and it should give me the exact value 🤯 it have actually never crossed my mind before this video. 50mm F2.8 converting to 35mm would be: 35 divided by 50 = 0.7 0.7 multiplied by F2.8 = F2.0 Bro i am really glad i found this channel, i had the same reaction on the sensor noise video!

[@filmmaking2444]

This video alone could've saved me years of shitty film school

[@SethFox94]

Amazing content. Production value is high, the substance is quality, keep it up.

[@jeevangopal112]

One thing: everything checks out perfectly. I respect the math and science. I have to say, in every one of those comparison shots where everything is matched including the depth of field, between the mini & 65, there is far more depth and 3 dimensionality in 65mm. On the 65mm shots, the distance from the talent's forehead to the top of the head, hair wrapping around the head, chin to the neck, to the background, there's considerable depth and distance. In comparison the mini looks flat. You can look at every part of the image and see these subtle but obvious differences, and you don't even need to look that hard. What could cause this? Dynamic range and color depth is the same on both cameras, the only difference is more pixels. In this case I don't want to say more resolution, rather more gradience, and of course, a lot more micro contrast thats creating such depth. But we all know resolution=clarity and more color depth = more gradience, so what is truly causing this?? Color grading? No way, because there's far more going on with that image. Please take a closer look at the comparison shots my friends. Go to the original test videos if you can. I'd argue very similar things are happening with the Blackmagic shots featuring the female talent.

[@WillChao]

I think that's more due to the sharpness and resolution difference, with the 65 being a lot sharper creating more background separation. If you match resolutions I highly doubt you can notice such a difference.

[@Frontigenics]

I agree. This video has some great info... but still leaves out the fact that focus is different as well. The "large format look" is not just FOV (which yes, can be matched) but rather FOCUS-vs-FOV. Lenses and Aperture DO NOT CHANGE based on format. Thus, when using a 90mm lens on large-format at f5.6 you can keep MORE of the PLANE of the subject in focus as well as throwing out the background. THIS relationship is what people are really referring to when they talk about the large-format-look. An equivalent lens (35/40mm at f1.4) when matching FOV to the 90mm f5.6 will simply not behave or look the same. So even when you match FOV and BLUR CIRCLE... you're still left with a thinner focus plane. That's the "gradience" you're referring to.. and the "immerisveness" that the DPs mention as well... shallower image WITH deeper focus. All of these "large format debunked" videos leave out this crucial point at the end... it's not whether certain FOV can be matched in a lab... it's the way lenses/cameras are used in PRACTICE. And IN PRACTICE-- a 90mm lens (being used as a medium-wide in large-format)-- will ALWAYS look different than matching FOV on a smaller format. The TLDR of it all is: The "large-format-look" is simply the look you get when you use long-lenses in a "wide-lens" setup. This PRACTICALLY creates the effect people refer to as "compression". So yes, when defined in this way, why large-format does indeed look LESS compressed.

[@WillChao]

@@Frontigenics that's incorrect, when matched for DOF the plane of focus does not change. DOF by very definition is the amount of depth that's in focus and you can run this through any calculator or tests. Honestly, pick up two camera formats and test for yourself, it's been done and proven that this depth does not change when you equalise the blur cicles (ie. 2.8 on Super35 vs. 5.6 on 65mm) Now you CAN make an argument for focus fall off, the transition between in and out focus may look different, but that falls under individual lens character rather than any specific scientific reason. Compression also has absolutely nothing to do with this, this myth has been debunked ages ago. Compression (aka. perspective) is ONLY affected by distance to subject and absolutely nothing else

[@ahmeddjeghri6879]

You're exactly what the industry needs, a science based no BS guy that brings facts to the table, thank you! And you're absolutely right, I'm still able to shoot bomb videos with a rusty damaged GH5, because IT CAN!

[@shagral]

great to hear good old GH5 is still kickin it!

[@princepeachfuzz]

came to see the differences, got mad that they're not that much, and sat down and educated myself with your video, thank you❤

[@REMY.C.]

Aaaahhhh... AWESOME! Talking about the jacket... And the video of course 😅 This is the kind of video I need to go back to several times to take notes and screenshots!

[@olesjor]

very well explained sensor size and focal length. The best video I've seen on this topic.

[@julmaass]

One crucial point you missed was that if you subject is >3m from your lens at medium angle of view 35-50 equivalent then YES, having a stupidly large aperture separates you subject from the surrounding a lot better and it doesn't look like a mushy closeup. Whether the cinematographers in question are shooting stupid large apertures, like >f1.8 on a 65mm sensor, is the question.

[@Meth0z]

This is craaazy man!! so much quality information!! You really deserve many more subs and views! Thanks for the video, it was a pleasure to watch and learn new stuff.. as always

[@shagral]

Appreciate it! Glad you enjoyed it.

[@dthomasproductions88]

The only reason I actually prefer full frame over apsc is because I personally really like the feeling ultra wide lenses (specifically 8-12mm lenses) give for establishing shots. Unfortunately, full frame cameras usually tend to be higher priced and so does the glass you need for it with some exceptions here and there. That said, I currently have a Fuji XT3 which sports a 35mm sensor and I'm very happy with the images I get from it. I love the colors I get out of the box, and I barely have to do any tweaking to get it to look good but it still has enough latitude if I really want to go crazy with it. Also, for what I do, I've never needed more than 4k.

[@inmyvoice2267]

I wanted a video on ursa 17k Black Magic for a long time, but I could not find anyone on KZbin about it. Thanks for making this video.

[@MrFreezeMovie]

I agree with all of this. Full frame is the sweet spot for an ange of view to shallow depth of field ratio. With F/1.4 lenses as wide as 14mm (Sigma), F/1.2 lenses as wide as 24mm (Samyang) and F/0.95 lenses as wide as 28mm (Laowa)... Nothing on any other format touches that in terms of equivalency. For this reason I actually am really excited about the future of the Fuji GFX sensor size (44×33). It's like a plus sized FF sensor where you can utilize more of a full frame lens's image circle when shooting in a video aspect ratio. It's also just about the same aspect ratio as IMAX, so that's fun. A plus sized sensor that you can use as much or as little of is the dream. Beyond that I see no reason to go bigger.

[@andreasgiobel6355]

Great episode, thx. There are one more benefit , and it’s math for collecting light, a larger sensor will collect more light than a smaller one. So for lowlight cinema film making a larger sensor can be beneficial.

[@shagral]

The flip side of that is decreased DoF. So if you end up closing down the aperture to preserve focus, the whole low light advantage is lost. Besides, exposure is not a part of the "look" discussion, so I left it out.

[@tvstafford1989]

Love your videos. Always so in depth and thorough and gives an awesome amount of context and perspective.

[@shagral]

Thank you!

[@davidroseman3287]

This was indeed a great presentation. Entertaining, funny, articulate and thoughtful. I remember when Gerald Undone had only a few thousand subscribers and I asked myself “how is this possible?”

[@shagral]

thanks! Gerald is the OG camera nerd force

[@ottoburgess1555]

Wow. Fantastic presentation! I am not a cinema guy, but in photography we deal with similar misconceptions when it comes to film/imager size, focal length, angle of view, and depth of field. What you present here is exactly right. At 66 I have been around the block more often than I care to admit. But there are reasons that for more than 20 years I shot 6x7 and 6x4.5 film format exclusively. Big prints, cropping, color fidelity, negative retouching, etc. You can get a reasonable quality 11x14 print from 35mm film, but the colors are not as good, negative retouching near impossible, and grainy. I found 6x4.5 the smallest format where I could 16x20 money prints any time. I’m now looking at a personal photo system for my retirement years. There are many ‘formats’ to consider. But for many reasons I find myself drawn to digital medium format, Fujifilm GFX or Hasselblad X2D. 16 bit color. 14 stops dynamic range. Not that I need it really. I loved your calculations on needed resolution for flexibility in generating 4K content. This gets at the heart of it. Not sure how important color depth is in cinema production, or dynamic range in recovering shadows or pulling down highlights. Or how about future proofing? Will 8K consumption become a thing? If so, shooting 65 with 15MP, allows one to go back to the original material and cut out an 8K version without compromise, if need be. I find it interesting that older content shot only on film, can more easily but remastered to 2K, then 4K, and even 8K with good results. But anything that contains CGI requires a lot more effort because it was geared to 2K, and there is no recovery of original content beyond that. I’m just glad I stuck with photography. What you do is too complex for my head these days. But hey, you got this. I’m very impressed. Carry on. P.S. - I love IMAX…LOL

[@shagral]

Thanks for your thoughtful comment and for sharing your experience with larger formats in photography, though this video is specifically on digital cinema cameras. Dynamic range is very much an issue in film production, I have a very in-depth video in that. I sincerely hope 8k delivery won't become a thing. 4K is already placebo at normal viewing distances. This is all driven by TV industry. For photography I would go for GFX too (if I could afford it, lol), I don't mind the size, I like slower pace of photography, I spend a lot of time editing, and I love the idea of printing. Images became too commoditised, print is really a way out of the photo sharing rat race.

[@ottoburgess1555]

@ Yes. This is the first video of yours that I watched. Viewed a couple more. Very good work! I agree about slowing things down in photography. At 66 I don’t have run and gun in me any longer. Currently only sporting a Ricoh GR IIIx. And I have not printed much in years. The Q3 43 is tempting, but looking to see what the new GFX 100RF will be like. I used multiple Fuji roll film rangefinders in the past, and enjoyed those very much - back in the wet photography days….LOL.

[@our_roadtrip]

Well... Dynamic range and colour depth are usually a huge benefit from larger sensors...

[@shagral]

Nope. I had a whole section recorded about DR but eventually scrapped it because it's no a part of the "look" conversation. There is a slight boost to DR (I'm talking less than a stop) but that's purely due to resolution increase (finer noise + downsampling to 4K). How would there be more colour depth? A65 is just 3 alexa sensors stitched together, it's the same sensor. Making it bigger doesn't magically improve colour depth.

[@stevenwang3396]

Great video! I’ve been wondering about fstop recently and this helped answer my questions!

[@IFrancyISantosI]

this video was completely out of your budget. i was shocked to see under 4k subs.. what? instant subscription from me

[@rw3452]

YT needs to reward good content like this.

[@RonCoy]

FYI, the Blackmagic footage of the girl walking through the woods is from the Pyxis Full Frame sensor, not the Ursa 17K or 12K.

[@shagral]

I never said otherwise. I'm just using it to illustrate shallow DoF

[@pglazzari1]

I always enjoy listening to and watching your videos, you know what I’m saying man! I have scene a lot of what you point out before watching your channel. I just enjoy how your share reference and perspective that helps me understand the DP and cinematography that much more, you know what I’m saying?! Thanks for continuing share your experience.

[@shagral]

total legitness, bruv

[@kapoutdrakonis7481]

You changed my mind. Thanks, gear will be cheaper now !

[@shagral]

Good to hear!

[@W0genius1]

Something not covered here is that a large sensor have larger pixels for a given resolution so dynamic range could be a benefit. Unfortunately most cameras prioritise resolution instead

[@artur.charaev]

Thank you for the video, most photographers lives with the same illusions about medium format. There is so many silly videos of "how to replicate medium format look on FF" and most of them is full absence of any knowledge. Once you dive into equivalence world things becomes so simple.

[@AltCine]

Absolute GOLD! Thank you so much for this video very educational and supports a lot of my findings but not knowing the science.

[@shagral]

Thanks! Please share if you can 🙌🏻

[@SimeonKolev]

Great video! Large format look comes from the lenses. Their character, the way they render image. The problem is to have the same lens on smaller sensor, if you use the big lens on a small sensor you lost the edges of the image and it is not the same anymore. If you are fine with the modern boring look of a lens - no worries you can shoot on any sensor size, there are already a bunch of modern boring lenses out there. I would add only this - the depth of focus - wider lenses have thinner focus field which is the opposite of what most people think but physics say that this is the reality. Which is part of the larger sensor look - you have bigger bokeh but the focus depth it also bigger. BTW if you shoot on film the focus area is even deeper because film captures image not in perfect thin plane like digital sensors, film particles are placed in 3 dimensions and this adds a little more depth of focus. In fact older lenses are designed to benefit from that, whereas modern lenses are designed to focus the light in smaller area because digital sensors have photo diodes placed only in 2 dimensions. And if we are to be serious all of this is just a small part of what makes the image great :). But it is nice to go nerdy from time to time.

[@Frontigenics]

Yep, I just made this same point in another comment. The real "large-format-look" people are referring to-- is the effect of being able to throw-out the background, YET retain a deeper subject-focus. If you could match the FOV/DOF of a medium- format setup (with say, a hypothetical 25mm f0.5 lens)-- you would still be left with a MUCH THINNER focal-plane. This creates the colloquial-effect referred to as "compression". A 90mm lens always behaves as a 90mm lens... you just see "more" of it on a large-format camera... thus, you can use it as a wider lens... thus, it creates a totally different look in practical usage.

[@Dale_Campbell]

Nice, I’ve been preaching this for years! But as noted at 17.00 this is what I feel a lot of people are gushing over…. no doubt often in combination with mistakenly changing distance to subject which will then compound this. Also you’re in the UK 🎉

[@shagral]

Cheers! Yes indeed 🇬🇧 BTW, feel free to get in touch if I can be of service.

[@GS-XV]

This is the sensor she told you not to worry about ... 🤣 😂

[@ThierryGibralta]

Great video! I like your evidence based analysis. Straight to the point with a touch of humor. Subbed!

[@shagral]

Appreciate that, glad you like the style! 🙌🏻

[@losimphoto]

what about low light performance? (regarding noise)

[@adrianvasian]

this is better than going to cine uni 😍

[@shagral]

Probably because I never went to film school lol

[@pomanprod]

Very interesting. I have four of the a7S3 and two of the Alpha1. I gravitate toward the Alpha1 due to the 8.6K sensor as it allows alot of flexibility in reframing. Also, the noise seems to be lower too when I deliver in 4K.

[@shagral]

That checks out, high res = finer noise and more room to crop. Not sure how that's related to the video though, both cameras are full frame.

[@fillblood3075]

It was incredibly educational. Even though I've been taking photos and shooting video for years, you opened my eyes to some points about sensor size ratios that I couldn't articulate on my own. Thank you!

[@shagral]

Thanks for watching ;)

[@pedrova8058]

pretty nice video. But the point at 17:50 is important, because a lens with f2.8 is more expensive than one with a maximum aperture of f5.6. And we want _generally speaking- more low-light gathering capability, not the other way around. So, to match the look of a f2.8 lens on 65mm, you need a much brighter lens in S35 ( f1.4). And that's way hard to make (well controlled aberrations fully open at f1,4), and even harder to afford lol. But you are right, there are options out there

[@OlegUstimenko]

this is not a concern in the real world. Its way easier and cheaper to rent an alexa mini/35/amira and a set of zeiss super speeds or lomo illuminas than an alexa 65 and any lens set for that format.

[@JoshSher_]

Great video! I think there’s an opportunity during next decade to acquire cameras and lenses of top of the line quality, just because they’re super 35. You can get a looot for the money. more than all of the filmmakers before 2010 ever needed to make you admire them.

[@SuperRexProductions]

20:00 I couldn’t agree more! I was so distracted watching all of Zack Snyder’s most recent movies. He’s decided to shoot everything wide open with so little in focus that I find myself looking away from the screen.

[@psysword]

Well he’s got his point

[@Mr.JimPickens]

Glad I found this channel. Keep up the great work!!

[@rubythelabrador]

Excellent work!! Keep GOING!

[@shagral]

thank you! some day I will have as many subs as your dog xD

[@rubythelabrador]

@@shagral I was somewhat inspired by your camera sensor commentary to try and make a viral video with a ~$20 camera. kzbin.info/www/bejne/nGWplKCNqNONiNE

[@Joshs_Journey]

Wow, I wish this video had been shown to me while I was attending film school. I feel embarrassed by how much I learned through this. Thank you for this highly informative piece of content! And one last thing. Your animations are incredible! I’d love to see a dedicated tutorial on how you created a few of them!

[@shagral]

Thanks! It's really simple stuff. I make them in Keynote / Powerpoint, export as a movie and then do the punch-ins with a free Motion VFX plugin mCam motionvfx.sjv.io/shagral

[@rodrigogarcia2607]

Thank you. I was totally sure bigger sensors would give me close ups with less perspective distortion before watching this. Very informative.

[@shagral]

You’re welcome! I’m glad I could shed some light on these topics.

[@clarkeemalarkee]

This was super informative, thank you man. Learned a lot! Love mythbusting!

[@rccli]

this is an incredible video as a casual camera enjoyer. thanks so much for the clear and competent breakdown!

[@shagral]

Appreciate the feedback! Glad you enjoyed it!

[@igorzhidkov1957]

Exciting video as always! Request for next topic: cine glass vs stills glass. Too few non bs videos on this topic.