Camera sensor and film size explained - From 1/3 inch over super35 to IMAX - Epic Episode #1

[@Tasurincci]

Great video, incredible quality, best perspective ever given to this topic, thank you very much.

[@MediaDivision]

Thanks a lot Tasurincci

[@minneapolisvideoproduction8062]

​@@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?

[@MediaDivision]

@@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: kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z4WWhmOBoNasZ8k ...you can also see how we built a 65mm sensor from a s35 sensor.... that is Alexa 65 territory. kzbin.info/www/bejne/fn-Vap9ppNqFbJY 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

[@MichaelWeizenfeld]

@@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.

[@RaymondToms]

Love the subject, but had to stop about a 1/3 way through because that background droning really got to me.

[@MadcapMatt]

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.

[@MediaDivision]

😂 True true.... and much much better codecs, too. Still, ridiculous.

[@muadyussuf5233]

@@MediaDivision Do you reckon they gimp the codecs on consumer models today to force their usage to remain on the amateur level?

[@MediaDivision]

@@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

[@muadyussuf5233]

@@MediaDivision Thanks for the explanation, makes sense! I'll scope that Kinefinity camera you mentioned, I've never heard of it before. Cheers

[@MediaDivision]

@@muadyussuf5233 Pleasure…www.kinefinity.com/mavo/?lang=en Be aware that Kinefinity (chinese manufacturer) is infamous for delivery problems ;-)

[@captaintv7488]

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"..

[@MediaDivision]

I wish... IF you find out... tell me ;-)

[@ajey214]

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

[@kibakobo]

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 !

[@Nickgowans]

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.

[@krane15]

Because its advanced and professional. The two most obvious things youtube is not.

[@vanderlubbe7791]

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.

[@webshooter5976]

11:26 I flinched when he went there... i'm a fan bruh... i'm a fan T_T

[@jacksonpetit1983]

Still didn't make the prequels good films.

[@AbdalaBrothers]

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

[@jeffkardosjr.3825]

What model(s)? How many sensors? And what actual resolutions were those ROTS cameras?

[@SplitGoose]

@@webshooter5976 ...really? What did you like about them?

[@neplusultra8830]

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.🙂

[@MediaDivision]

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

[@neplusultra8830]

@@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.

[@MediaDivision]

That is a very healthy attitude... and with this subject, it is even fun to learn. Thanks for hanging man

[@MediaDivision]

@@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. kzbin.info/www/bejne/fn-Vap9ppNqFbJY

[@jeffkardosjr.3825]

I wish Cameron would have stuck with 16:10 like Terminator 1.

[@markharris5771]

I’m purely a stills photographer, and I have to say this is the first moving film video to have me riveted.

[@MediaDivision]

Thanks Mark… that is a nice compliment… welcome to the dark side ;-) next stop… replicant eyes… or how to force red eyes in film kzbin.info/www/bejne/bofUmHtpi9Ghors

[@robertnees9781]

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.

[@MediaDivision]

Thanks Robert... much appreciated!! It is my pleasure

[@samuraisom636]

social media diarrhoea .....

[@MediaDivision]

… isn't it ? ;-)

[@samuraisom636]

absolutely :)

[@justjimmy3154]

Totally

[@jpdj2715]

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.

[@jpdj2715]

Have now watched a couple clips of this channel. Very high quality.

[@EposVox]

Very interesting :)

[@MediaDivision]

Thanks Epos… very much appreciated

[@dct124]

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.

[@LiebensteinMovies]

Why is Super 16mm with 12.52 x 7.41 bigger than 1 Inch with 13.2 x 8.8?

[@MediaDivision]

because shit happens

[@LiebensteinMovies]

@@MediaDivision I see ...

[@IanTester]

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.

[@ScribblebytesWorldwide]

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.

[@TheEplestugas]

@@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.

[@snuffpappy]

The chart would make a great poster for camera geeks. :)

[@MediaDivision]

But ist MUST be large format ;-) to size it is just a Postcard

[@Alexrocks1253]

@@MediaDivision maybe 10x size!

[@MediaDivision]

@@Alexrocks1253 Or 16x9 meters

[@Alexrocks1253]

@@MediaDivision perfect

[@billymurphy3]

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

[@MediaDivision]

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.

[@StringerNews1]

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!

[@Tmanaz480]

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.

[@jmalmsten]

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.

[@krane15]

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.

[@2dotGo]

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.

[@drell3813]

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.

[@drmajedmalak]

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....

[@MediaDivision]

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

[@IslandFilmMaker]

That was GREAT! Best video I've yet seen on KZbin 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??

[@MediaDivision]

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 KZbin 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.

[@IslandFilmMaker]

Look forward to what you do next 🍻

[@minneapolisvideoproduction8062]

@@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.

[@MediaDivision]

​@@minneapolisvideoproduction8062 Just some experimental stuff... we are not solid in grading HDR... as KZbin is not in delivering the same. Here is a very short sample (only works in youtube app on smart TVs that support HDR10) kzbin.info/www/bejne/qqjRnZWLdqmXntU 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.

[@DGaryGrady]

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.

[@jana20auskssl24]

Imax is 4:3? I´m confused. Is 65mm equal to 70/5 and is Imax equal to 70/15?

[@MediaDivision]

IMAX (15-perf analog) is natively 1.43:1… so, close to 4:3. Yes… you got it… 70mm vertical (like Panavision MGM/super/ultra…65mm is negative size + Soundtrack) is 5 perforations and IMAX is 15 running horizontally. IMAX is to 70mm what Vista Vision is to 35mm.

[@samiulislamsharan]

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!❤

[@MediaDivision]

Thanks a lot man… appreciated. Wait for the next one (about to be released). About 20x as good! ;-)

[@stefanol9272]

Hi I remembered that one day I came in to a good friend who is a big movie lover. And he saw the Disney film pirates of the caribian. And I as fist thing saidt to him oh what are you watching is that a home movie version it looks so cheap and fake. he got half angry no idiot. it is blueray . I saidt sorry but it looks so artificially and home made. and if thats the future I guess I dont going to see many movies anymore. somehow the resolution kills it. I dont know if I am wrong I am not a film maker but a photographer. But lots of new movies also forgot a good plot and put all the energy into high tech effects and the plot sucks like Avatar I never understood the hype of the movie or as you saidt in this episode the new star wars are boring in my own oppinion. Also I have to say right away I was born in 1978 and raised up with star wars. And played with these toys but the new movies are just way to boring. they somehow focus to much, on the effects but forgets the plot. The actors are there and their are all with huge talents why not then use it. But again Hollywood apparently forgets the main thing the plot. Why I say about the pirates movies because they used so much high tech that they managed to make it seem cheap and home made. just my 50 sent

[@kibakobo]

Most of the movies are now CGI, almost 70-80%. Shot with 'Green Screen' rooms. Real Film making is dying breed. This channel at least appreciate that difference. I somewhat feel the battle is between lens and sensor. The Real Artist like this channel are still involved and know their 'glass' and trying to live in the changing Simulated rendered world.

[@vangmx]

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.

[@MediaDivision]

Absolutely agree with everything.

[@vangmx]

@@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.

[@MediaDivision]

@@vangmx I am working on a digital "Ultra Panavision 70" lens boosted to an LF sensor. If you are into that.... stay tuned ;-)

[@ingorichter649]

For my private use my smartphone-sensor (currently built in my Samsung A34) fulfills all my expections for still and movie imaging. Thanks for this fantastic content. Yes, I also experienced the big medium so called "6 x 9" format in analogue still in German called "Rollfilm" - film cameras. It is amazing, but I don't need it for allday imaging.

[@MediaDivision]

Sure... for casual needs, the best cam is the one you have on you. For anything deliberate use the best you can get hold off. If you take a photo for the ages, medium format is quite a nice option... back in the day and still these days.

[@TheSeppy101]

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 👍

[@MediaDivision]

Thanks Seppy. The dirty secret is, that since digital became dominating, there is no intrinsically different look with different sensor sizes.

[@mahatmapech6288]

none of the formats (except for the 35mm fullframe) comes somehow close by its name to height or width of the sensor. "1 inch" is significantly smaller than any part of the sensor not even reaching out for an inch or 25,4mm. it would ve been nice to first make clear where the sensorsize have their origing in term of "name" or "size called".

[@MediaDivision]

Of course, it is easy to google the answer. Terminology is always a matter of tradition in one way or another. Very simple: “50 years ago when the world ran on vacuum tubes, video cameras used vacuum tubes as their image sensors. There were many different kinds, like orthicons, vidicons and plumbicons, and they were all described by the outside diameter of their overall glass tube. There were 1/2" and 2/3" tubes, and everyone used the same standards for measurements. The active image sensing areas were always much smaller than the tube's outside diameters, but we television engineers all understood what was going on since we all used the same measurements.” This is why this form of measurement is used for video sensors. Film negative was and is always measured in mm. All 35mm formats use the same substrate with the difference of orientation in camera. Super35 uses the same film as full frame in photography but vertically. Same process in film is called vista vision. Using a substrate with twice the width of 70mm vertically is than called 70mm and horizontally IMAX. IMAX is also used in photography, where you call it 6x7 medium format. In the industry, cost is always a very relevant factor… which is why you only find standard sized substrate in all formats. 8mm, 16m, 35mm, and 70mm. Same is true for digital. Sony is leading the market in sensors and they are invested in FF. This is why FF is slowly but surely becoming standard in prosumer cameras and even in the cinema realm. A sensor development just for the cine market is just to costly. The high price of the Arri Alexa is very much because it carries a sensor that was developed for the purpose.

[@MrMahatmaPech]

@@MediaDivision Thank you very much for this clean explanation. I only found the comparison in Wikipedia helpful but did not found out, that the origin was in tubes.

[@ernolaunis]

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 KZbin TOP 10. Don' t change anything!

[@MediaDivision]

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 ;-)

[@dct124]

I just caught that joke 😄 social media diarrhea lol

[@MediaDivision]

true story

[@hashinggz]

I wonder when curved sensor would happen and change the optics and perspective completely.

[@MediaDivision]

good question, it would completely change the lenses game toward tiny simple lenses with great quality. The have been prototypes I think

[@minneapolisvideoproduction8062]

@@MediaDivision Sounds interesting.

[@fto5935]

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...

[@vanderlubbe7791]

@@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.

[@MediaDivision]

@@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.

[@m-tron5966]

You are Amazing...Thank You for this 😬

[@MediaDivision]

Glad you feel that way M D .... totally our pleasure

[@_loois]

dude your channel needs to blow up. Great stuff!

[@MediaDivision]

surely hope so Luis... thanks a lot

[@AurelianIrimia]

Thank you very much! This is the video I was looking for. 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻

[@MediaDivision]

Always always Aurelian.... thanks for hanging

[@travisgatlin536]

Love the quality and presentation of this video

[@MediaDivision]

Thanks a lot man!!!

[@innerlightfilms]

I think the biggest difference with 70MM IMAX film is when its played back on 70MM film on a huge 1:66 screen. That is where you will witness its superiority. Even home cinemas with the newest laser projectors can not replicate that. Try blowing up Episode 2, printing it on 70MM film and playing it back. Probably looks like crap that way.

[@MediaDivision]

Of course Episode 2 will look like crap when viewed in an IMAX environment… no competition. IMAX has to be framed in a very specific way to make sense... basically, only the center portion of the frame is where all the action should take place… most of the screen fills peripheral view. That is not how episode 2/3 or most movies shot on IMAX are shot. The heist scene in The Dark Knight is shot like it is meant to be viewed with an ordinary field of view. the massive resolution doesn't really add anything to that.

[@DoubleBenis]

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!

[@MediaDivision]

Thanks a lot couch potato, I would stop right here and not go further back ... we had to start somewhere

[@DoubleBenis]

@@MediaDivision well with enough time on my hand will go over everything You created! :)

[@daleaferrrier]

One you missed is the fujifilm digital mf. Larger than full frame smaller than 645 mf. I have heard photographers talk about the "medium format look". Hmm, perhaps there is something to that, however, I thought of this especially in light of your rather dramatic comparison to the sensor size of the star wars clip to the dark knight clip done in imax. I mean many times difference in size, resolution, dynamic range, etc... pretty much any measurement you want to look at from a technical standpoint. But your point is well taken, if they had both been shot at the same sensor size would the results have been the same from a purely cinematic standpoint? I think all other things being equal, the answer would be yes.

[@MediaDivision]

There are so many formats we don't mention, we mention only formats relevant to filmmaking. 645 is an exception as it might become relevant in any of its incarnations. There is no look specific to a format (unless you go into extremes in terms of f-stop), but of course, larger sensors tent to have more resolution and will give - if the reproduction size remains the same. dynamic range is not (necessarily) higher with larger formats - but definitely with the given example. I think so too

[@seandoherty9820]

This is an excellent explainer video for different sensor and film sizes. Why on earth doesn't this have more views?

[@MediaDivision]

Thanks Sean.... it seems like viewer people are interested in this then one might think ;->)

[@timefilm]

Great video but a couple of mistakes with the anamorphic and vistavision explanations.

[@video2000ification]

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

[@MediaDivision]

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?!?!?!?

[@MindfulBehavior]

"Im not a fan of the prequels of Star Wars. I don't know who is." shots fired!!! lol

[@MediaDivision]

Thats where I draw the line in the sand ;-)

[@mid-realm]

Please do a video on explains codecs, prores, raw, etc!

[@MediaDivision]

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

[@mid-realm]

@@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.

[@MediaDivision]

@@mid-realm Thanks man... have a great 2019

[@gurugamer8632]

For cinema work super35 is very popular because it is mimicking the size of piece of super35mm film. Most of the Cinema line of lenses, serve the Super -35 size. lot of Cinema lenses are sold or able to rent in Super-35 which is the gold standard for cinema.

[@MediaDivision]

Well, kind of… of course. Super 35 is usually used as 4 perf negative and only the Alexa has something like format natively. Every larger format can be used cropping to 4-perf 35mm. There is no intrinsic look to 35mm or any other format. I can use every cine lens designed for 4-perf 35mm on any format. The DCI 35 sensor format is popular as it (was?) cheaper to produce than FF delivering the desired aspect ratio without wasting sensor surface/resolution

[@mYOwngUn]

are you german ? :) Very cool high quality video.

[@MediaDivision]

Yes... well spotted (not to hard I guess 😉).... thank you Luca

[@mYOwngUn]

@@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.

[@dorfschmidt4833]

@@MediaDivisionDein Englisch ist perfekt.

[@dadjake]

@@MediaDivision Hab mich schon gewundert... Dachte an irgendwas europäisches, aber dachte nicht direkt deutsch ':D

[@MediaDivision]

@@dorfschmidt4833 Ich bin mit einer Amerikanerin verheiratet… und glaube mir……… nein! ;-)

[@jonahlongoria]

IMAX 70mm 4 life

[@MediaDivision]

You never know what is around the corner ;-)

[@NassersGarage]

Great presentation and so easy to follow and understand, thank you for this amazing content 👌🏻

[@MediaDivision]

My pleasure Nasser.... thank you!!

[@randallburgess6393]

So Can I ask for your advice please. I am a small video production company so money for expensive gear is tight as my budgets don’t usually allow for rental of high end anamorphic lens. I shoot with full frame Canon dslr and a Sony APS size sensor. What would you recommend me to use to get the anamorphic look not just the bokeh but that perspective that those lens give especially when rack focuses are used. I think there is a lot of miss information out there and not much real knowledge on this subject.

[@MediaDivision]

its a science... become a member of "Anamorphic Shooters" on Facebook... watch everything kzbin.info ever did,,,, there are a 1000 possibilities and the all look different. I like to use a ISCO red star projector lens with a HCDNA variable dioper

[@LeN0nsenSe]

People are going to film school to learn this stuff. Amazing video!

[@MediaDivision]

Thanks Elvis... I thought you where dead?!?! Stay around... we are our own school here

[@krane15]

And sometimes not as well taught. I learned about it, but not in as much detail.

[@GeorgijusPavlovas]

I have already watched a huge number of videos on youtube, but in none of them did anyone talk about the MAIN difference between sensors of different sizes! Is it a conspiracy?

[@MediaDivision]

In that case you havn't really looked... there is a lot around. We will do one dedicated episode towards that subject. Hint: A larger format doesn't look inherently different.

[@LucBoeren]

Thank you very much for an amazingly well put together and highly informative video!

[@MediaDivision]

Thanks a lot Luc.... much appreciated! Thanks for watching

[@sergeantcrow]

Now I have no idea if this makes any iota of difference... As we go from the small to large in sensor size... the relative size of molecular structure in the glass gets smaller.. Molecules are extremely small.. however it's just something that came to mind...

[@MediaDivision]

Thanks for the input Sergeant.... Like you imply, I can't imagine molecule (or crystal) structure/size matters in this realm of scales.

[@josecolon8143]

This channel is an encyclopedia of knowledge! Subscribed

[@MediaDivision]

Glad to have you around Julio!

[@JyotiMishra]

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! :-)

[@MediaDivision]

Thanks Jyoti... and thanks for hanging!!!!

[@kentjensen4504]

The world needs you to do cinematography for features and TV series. You're brilliant.

[@MediaDivision]

Thanks a lot Kent! Please tell someone that can help with that 😆😆

[@kentjensen4504]

@@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.

[@MediaDivision]

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

[@THORFXMX]

The Feature film “CONTACT” was also shot on Panavision 65.

[@MediaDivision]

Parts of it… and many many others

[@VFed0seev]

each task - with its tool. Content is more important than form.

[@MediaDivision]

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 .

[@VFed0seev]

@@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 ;-)

[@MediaDivision]

@@VFed0seev Absolutely... with some minor exceptions: kzbin.info/www/bejne/hprVeWuGdql3nbM

[@ShugoAkatsuka]

Very informative, thank you for sharing this:)

[@MediaDivision]

Pleasure man… thanks for watching

[@AndreeMarkefors]

Thank you for providing well structured, scripted KZbin 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!

[@MediaDivision]

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.

[@AndreeMarkefors]

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

[@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.

[@AndreeMarkefors]

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

[@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

[@chrisw443]

I'm late. but the shoving of full frame or one inch down all new cameras is very annoying. Most things ever shot in human history, were not shot in full frame. I don't like it, it can just be too much. Also one inch being sold as a good way to get shallow DOF on a camcorder is kinda baloney, the DVX200 was a m43 camera, that was easy to get DOF on not one inch. I feel like m43, and super35 are the sensor sizes that should be put in more things, because thats a good appropriation of super 16 and 35mm, which shot most of everything ever made. pre 2010. But I doubt they'll be a update to the DVX200, that might improve the lens a tad for a little extra, and all new cinema cameras are gonna be dumping full frame. Full frame will be what everything is mostly shot on, that or one inch, weather we like it or not it seems.

[@MediaDivision]

Yes … FF is here to stay for simple technical reasons that go beyond the image quality. The format has simply the numbers required to run factories as it is the prevalent format for stills. This has the benefit, that designs for stills lenses fit right in. BTW s35 was easily the dominating format in cinema since the introduction and penetration of the Alexa LF. The digital cinema revolution was s35 and a part of it stays s35 … the lenses that are desired dictate the format.

[@MediaDivision]

Another BTW… the EVA1 was kind of the successor of the DVX200, trying to fill the niche but market it as a pro Camcorders/ cine cam

[@dogood8661]

Can I make series with the BMPCC 4K and sell it to Netflix?

[@MediaDivision]

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.

[@minneapolisvideoproduction8062]

@@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).

[@mahatmapech6288]

why is the sensor "1 inch" called that size inspite its diagonale being only less than 15,9mm? same question to all the other sizes!

[@MediaDivision]

Answered this in your other questiion

[@DrShaym]

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.

[@MediaDivision]

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: kzbin.info/www/bejne/pXrLdKyGlqmDbMk

[@Project_2501]

That was actually a really great video! Although I hate your german accent, but no offense buddy.

[@MediaDivision]

Thanks for the flowers... no offense taken. I hope you don’t find it offensive that I can’t bring myself to care if you like or dislike any accents ;-)

[@Penta_Penguin_237]

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.

[@MediaDivision]

That is a nice compliment.... thanks a lot. I would say this is very basic stuff ;-)

[@Petersonmgee]

Why can’t you just move further back to get a wider image? What’s the difference?

[@MediaDivision]

Of course you can… within practical limits like room sizes. But, that changes the perspective. Way simpler… just use a shorter focal length. You can match any given field of view with any format just by that. Not only the field of view, but also depth of field. This is called the equivalency of lenses. Example: a 25mm f1.4 on Micro Four Thirds will give you the equivalent image to a 50mm f2.8 on Full Frame. Why larger formats? Larger formats have potentially less grain and more resolution when fed with enough light. Another option to give a wide field of view on a smaller format, ist to use anamorphic lenses. We have an episode about that… if you are interested: kzbin.info/www/bejne/mHrLknyqgdOGiJI

[@freddymiguelponce]

GREAT VIDEO! This is my first time in your channel and is Amazing the way you explain this! If you allow me a few questions please. I'm trying to improve the quality of my zoom business calls and then i'm planning to make training videos for my clients. I'll buy the new BMPCC 6K. In your opinion, what wopuld be the right EF lens for a talking head shot like the one you did at the begining of your video? I just have about 4ft of space between me and the lens Would you please tell me which camera did you use? What was the focal lenght used and how far where you from the lens? Thanks in advance and sorry for my Egnlish; i;m still learning Have a Productive and Healthy Day!

[@MediaDivision]

Thank you Freddy… this is an old video. Our Production value quadrupled easily since. Check out the new ones. Usually, consultations like this are restricted to our Kubrick members and mail (as you can add photos and files). But as I have a minute and a hot coffee……… With a simple/close setup like yours… and a light hungry s35 camera like the PCC6K I would probably go for the Sima 18-35 Art (EF of course). It is simple to use, fast, and versatile lens for an OK price. The long end (35mm) is still good for headshots and the short end is great for good Run n' Gun given the crop sensor. f1.8 feed enough light in demanding situations and offers room for FF like DoF. This is shot on an EVA1... the 6K would look better IMAHO… distance is 3 meters and I don't remember the focal length… 35 or 50. If you want a good, interesting, cinematic, image What really matters is the lighting!!!!! And a nice grade.

[@freddymiguelponce]

@@MediaDivision WOW! Thank you so much for taking the time to answer my question! "Production value quadrupled easily since. Check out the new ones"... i definitely will!

[@TheDude-vx6wn]

Is a larger format generally better? But I understand it comes at a cost of weight and size, not to mention price probably.

[@MediaDivision]

Better is always relative... better with what? Better in which situation? If you neglect cost/practicality there are still problems with larger formats like shallower DoF (if you need deep DoF) and higher light demand. IMAX is worthless in low light.

[@lunakill2498]

Can you shoot cinematic videos with the DJI Mavic Pro?

[@MediaDivision]

not really.... DJI Mavic 2 Pro is a huge improvement and one can get away with it of corse one should stick to arial and avoid low light. This one uses Mavic 2 Pro, Yi 4K, GH5 & EVA1 kzbin.info/www/bejne/eqvFmYSBg9-UiZY

[@emanrizon]

I may be too laye but this is super helpful for beginners like me. Will be binge watching your content now lol

[@MediaDivision]

Thanks... go ahead... we have episode for beginners and for professionals.... choose your poison.

[@phillipmaguire4671]

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.

[@mika2666]

How come the mm sizes don't match up at all? You show a larger box for something with fewer mm

[@MediaDivision]

You may have spotted a typo?!

[@st.samael]

No sé si tu público objetivo también sea para personas que sepan español. Acá en Latinoamerica, hace mucha falta la educación cinematográfica. Solo soy un aficionado por el momento y entiendo el ingles a medias, sin embargo, he tenido que pausar poco a poco, traducirlo y luego aprender de tu valiosa información, muchísimas gracias por compartirlo.

[@MediaDivision]

Es nuestro placer ... en el mundo del cine no se puede sobrevivir sin un inglés perfecto ... así que lo primero que tendrá que aprender es el inglés. Eso te abrirá un mundo entero. Buena suerte

[@StudioGalvan]

🤓 Excellent Overview and Commentary on Digital Formats. 👍🏼 I can't think of one you left out. Of course there are larger film formats but as David Ziser said, "Friends Don't Let Friends Shoot Film!"

[@MediaDivision]

Thanks… well, of course there are larger formats. I have 6x7 4x5 and 8x10 cameras… but this is about moving pictures… and IMAX was and is the the largest relevant format.

[@StudioGalvan]

While I have my feet in both moving and still media, I'm still more heavily still so that's where my mind went. Regardless, this is an excellent presentation and I'm going to show it to my students!

[@DS-jo4xx]

Damn! Now that explains why the entire cinema theatre gasped and jumped from their seats when Tom Cruise accedently slips from the window of Burj Khalifa and is held by his ankle at the last moment.... That was one of the most amazing immersive cinematic experience I ever had in a movie theater and now I understand it's because that sequence was shot in Imax.

[@MediaDivision]

Well, the “immersive” part has little to do with the negative size of IMAX but rather with the larger bend screen in the cinema... and that you sit closer an more in the middle. All that is designed to enlarge the FOV (field of view) giving the immersive feeling. If you watch IMAX shot footage in a normal cinema, it looks pretty much the same as 35mm

[@KDCloudy]

just stumbled across your channel and this was an EXCELLENT video. subscribed!

[@MediaDivision]

thanks man....!!!! Glad to have you here!

[@yf.f4919]

I've just finished to shoot a roll of standard-8 mm film (16mm film, "impressed" two times). Is there any relevant difference between this and Super8 mm film? Thx.

[@MediaDivision]

... you mean "exposed"... so double 8?? Well, super 8 is a little bit larger as a format. The perforation is rotated to leave more of the width to the actual image. Is that a relevant size difference? In terms of IQ, I wouldn't say so. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8_mm_film#/media/File:8mm_and_super8_and_double8.png

[@yf.f4919]

@@MediaDivision Yup, it was "exposed" and "double-8", my english (and brain) just gets worse after the sunset... thanks!!!

[@cristiangonzalezr]

Wow, thanks for the graphic explanation! Great!

[@MediaDivision]

Sue thing... glad you enjoy.

[@collinausbury]

Videos that cause you to think on KZbin... thank you.

[@MediaDivision]

Always.... thanks for watching man

[@thewildernesshiker-howtose4438]

Great video. Your videos are very educational as well as fascinating. My thoughts are how to make low budget KZbin videos as close to big budget films in quality as possible. I am using a full frame camera and always wanting to learn more. Thanks.

[@MediaDivision]

Thanks Hiker… by now we mostly do docus for filmmakers. We usually sprinkle bit of our know how and how we did things into the episodes or in the post surrounding each episode on instagram, in youtube shorts or in our FB group.... or what do you mean? Do you have a specific question.

[@thewildernesshiker-howtose4438]

@@MediaDivision What is the best way to do night videos with ultralight equipment. It means carrying camping gear, food, water, and camping equipment. I am experimenting with 3 Lume Cube Panels , but want a realistic background and wonder how much light I need so it is not just a sea of darkness.

[@MediaDivision]

That is of course problematic.... Lume Cubes are not a bad approach. We made a video about ultra mobile lighting kit in the past here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/j3SzpKyVgbakj8U Now, that will not help to light larger scale scenery and in that video we show, how Tarantino did i t in the Hateful eight and in Django. Defenitly nothing to carry around. Personally, I would go for the available light method and good timing. A really sensitive camera like a Sony A7sIII and a fast lens (watch our f0.7 episode here) can turn that set or some lume cubes to something silly bright: kzbin.info/www/bejne/aKGYdmqfjd2Yh6c. Not to say I would go for an ultrafast lens for most subjects, but something at f/1 would help a lot and it can look magical with moonlight. Definitely bring a tripod for long exposures, too. Hope that helps a bit

[@brettturner5299]

Great video, thank you. My 2 cents on your final Q regarding the prequels - no difference in terms of 'quality' because of the monster cameras dealing with compression behind those lenses. But the flat, green-screen prequels aesthetically look awful.

[@MediaDivision]

Thanks you, and thank you for the input. The "monster" Camera has the fitting small sensor behind the lenses. Something like a BMPCC 4K eats that old Sony for lunch. Exiting times… it is not the camera but the content. We do agree that in the case of the Prequels that is awful at any corner ;-)

[@LISTEDGames]

Wish I'd see a comparison between these sensors from a pic which you took. Even smartphones have a 1 inch sensor now. Mine has 1/1.5 inch

[@MediaDivision]

and then I go out and get a "pic" with every common cine format including IMAX? It doesn't make any sense in the context. No format has an intrinsic look to it, hence, your phone and IMAX would look largely the same, given that you expose accordingly.

[@LISTEDGames]

@@MediaDivision well no, but the portable ones that you can afford, including older phones from early 2000s, haven't seen that done on KZbin

[@MediaDivision]

​@@LISTEDGames I can't really see a benefit to that experiment knowing that the formats itself doesn't add any look… any look would be because of a specific camera/sensor/negativ

[@LegoVlogger]

Pretty cool that my phone nearly has the same sensor size with the camera they shot star wars with. ( 1/1.6 is my phones sensor size )

[@MediaDivision]

Sure... that doesn't mean that your phone produces anywhere the quality that the old Sony CineAltas did.

[@LegoVlogger]

@@MediaDivision Yeah, it doesn't 😞😅

[@sodastreetproductions4305]

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.

[@MediaDivision]

Thanks man… Definitely, and it only gets better.

[@klauslehrmann3906]

Anyone noticed the mistake in The Dark Knight? The large shadow in the buildings-shot, the thug breaks the window, and when we see out the window from the interior, the show is gone. Fail!

[@MediaDivision]

All movies are full of mistakes.... who cares?? It doesn't impact the story.

[@klauslehrmann3906]

My point ain't that a movie should be flawless. I know there is no such thing as perfection.@@MediaDivision

[@pavol3176]

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

[@MediaDivision]

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: kzbin.info/www/bejne/pXrLdKyGlqmDbMk

[@Kombi-1]

Fantastic videro!! I'm not entirely sure why, but MFT mostly looks less 3-dimensional to me, even with relatively wide open aperture. Using full frame, it's easier to get a less flat image than using a Pocket 4k with speedbooster. Maybe I'm entirely wrong

[@MediaDivision]

Thanks for the input… our latest episode "f0.3 - the impossible lens" experimenst with these kinds of "feelings" by using a 8x10 large format image. We have a section about "the large format look" towards the end in there. That might be interesting for you. kzbin.info/www/bejne/Y2XYq6yel6l5l9U

[@Kombi-1]

@@MediaDivision Fantastic, thanks for the answer! I find your videos to be more enjoyable than most other tech channels - The references to movies like Blade Runner and Shining alone brought some joy!

[@MediaDivision]

@@Kombi-1 Always… Thanks for hanging

[@SchardtCinematic]

I used to be the gut that said full frame 35mm sensor only. Even though my first dslr was a Canon T3i and it did great video. Now I prefer shooting with my Canon 90D and my new Canon R7. They both take very nice 4k video. On another note concerning the Star Wars Ep 2&3. If George Lucas hadn't pushed for digital cinema and working with Sony to make those cameras. The film world might not have the advancements in the Airi Alexa and RED cameras we have today that has brought alot if streamlining to today's film Productions. When Episode 2&3 were shot digitally those sensors were probably the biggest digital cinema sensors at that time in history.

[@jlove24]

I really appreciate you making videos like this

[@MediaDivision]

Glad you are entertained... Thanks for watching Jlove

[@MaheshDahal]

Good job, love from Nepal🇳🇵🇳🇵🇳🇵🇳🇵😊 You deserve subscribe, like, share ......i definitely watch every video of future which made for us,

[@MediaDivision]

Thanks a lot man!!! Thanks for hanging

[@gcingolani31]

Great video!!! Great channel!!! Greeting from Argentina!!!

[@MediaDivision]

Thanks a lot Guillermo!!

[@bd048]

I am retired from professional film and video. This was refreshingly honest.

[@MediaDivision]

Thanks man!

[@trevorreedstudios]

This is an awesome channel. Great videos.

[@MediaDivision]

Thank you Trevor! Glad you enjoy!

[@LeoRack]

This is some really wonderful stuff. Thank you for creating such detailed video

[@MediaDivision]

Thank you… my pleasure Leo!!!

[@abbeym3tv556]

What size lens is equal to gigapixel and why do we need gigapixel camera

[@MediaDivision]

The size of a sensor is not determined by the number of pixels ... an iPhone has way more pixel then an Arri Alexa... so Pixel (or Sensel) can have vastly different sizes so there is no definite answer to that. Do we "need" gigapixel cameras? F

[@abbeym3tv556]

Someone told me that 16,000mm camera lens is equal to gigapixel when zoomed in to maximum

[@Csnumber1]

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!!

[@MediaDivision]

Thanks a lot… rather watch air new ones… they are MUCH improved in terms of script and execution

[@Csnumber1]

@@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!!!

[@MediaDivision]

Thanks again… but seriously… watch this. It is about 1000 times the effort kzbin.info/www/bejne/mHrLknyqgdOGiJI

[@Csnumber1]

@@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.

[@deiteabylilmeer]

STAR WARS PREQUELS SHOT IN 2/3 INCH!? My oh my have I just learned a thing. And the video has only just started...

[@Veptis]

Depth of field is one thing, and you can't fully get the same look on a small vs a big sensor by using equivalent focal length and aperture entrance pupil. Larger sensor also needs more light for an equivalent shot, or less ND... For my thermal cameras the bigger sensors need bigger lenses which are really hard to find, but the look and quality of giant pixels isn't matched by modern miniature cameras.

[@MediaDivision]

You can get the same look within the "equivalency of lenses" you would have to get a really big/fast lens on a really big sensor and compare that to a small one. You can't get the equivalent to a f1 on full frame on a MFT due to physical limitations. In and practical sense… sure you can.... if you don't use tiny sensors with massive resolution of course.

[@Veptis]

@@MediaDivision here is the thing, the whole image exists at once point, where it converges and is inverted. However that is only true in the pinhole example. The out of focus parts don't, they converge at the width of entrance pupil. There are physical limitations. And glass has a limited refractive index. We don't use many telecentric lenses, but the best lenses try to approach telecentricity. Since light expands from that point of convergence into all directions equally, how far away that point is from the sensor/film plane will influence how far the bokeh size is changing over distance. Maybe you can setup a few crude tests with equivalent lenses and sensor(perhaps use crop modes and focal reducers as well). But different lenses go out of focus at a different speed. And you will find that larger lenses (physically larger) will have this happening more. Via the lensrentals podcast, you can email Art Adams and discuss what Arri sells as "LF-Look" and how depth of field on large sensors and large lenses cannot be done on smaller lenses even if your ignore physical limitations. I think it's marginal, but there is a limit and that's also part of the reason larger formats do exist with the many burdens they bring with you. Light in the visible spectrum is physically limited by glass (and quartz) so smaller sensors would require even larger lenses to perform as well as a large lens and a large sensor.

[@MediaDivision]

Yeah… did tests in many contexts… we have lot's of lens related videos on the channel. The whole point of lens equivalency is that images look the same. This calculator comes in handy. www.pointsinfocus.com/tools/depth-of-field-and-equivalent-lens-calculator/ I don't know what you mean when you say "big". Size is a relative thing with a lens… what matters is the entrance pupil and it's relationship to the focal length that equals f-stop. Telecentricity is more about being OLPF friendly. I could talk to Arri… but I don't need to. I know what is marketing and what is not… I own a "LF" camera. And I found out how surprisingly little the manufacturers know about the subject. The LF exists because Arri needed a 4K product and didn't have a new sensor. That is pretty much it. There is no look you could in terms of DoF of FoV you couldn't get with a XT. Larger formats exist because it was the only way to get more resolution and smaller grain with the same negative substrate… it also solves some thermal problems during projection and reduces jitter effects in camera and during projectio

[@norskradiofabrikk]

I believe that by studying how artistic choice gravitates towards certain standards one can gain valuable insight. There is a generation gap opening up between the "established" way of doing things and the new generation bottle-fed on Sony propaganda about a "full frame sensor" magically making everything smaller not "complete" nor "full". We should all remember that Sony is in the sensor business and has more than once used their marketing to change the world - Walkman, and CD's spring to mind. There is also the "American" ethos of "bigger is better" that drives the sensor craze. Your video actually shows a different picture. The vast majority of artistically great films were produced in the S35 format, and with good reason. The exceptions are mostly driven by the low quality of the theatre print film suffering from having been copied at least 4 times, or as you say, by needing a format that lends itself as the input to CGI manipulation where you want a very clean image so the CGI doesn't stand out as fake. But returning to the topic of formats - modern S35 sensors (or MFT with speedboosters) can easily outperform the standard Eastman shooting stock in terms of dynamic range, noise and resolution. So the S35 format has improved along with the improved digital CMOS sensors. Also, modern lens design gives us f 0.95 in establishing, medium and close up lens variants - not that 0.95 is of much use in and of itself, but it shows that the world has evolved since the "superspeed era". So pragmatism - and the availability of excelent anamorphic adapters both with or without optical abberations - gives the budding cinematographer a smørgåsbord of equipment at a low cost hitherto undreamed of. Unless of course that person falls prey to the "bigger is better" ethos! So no, there will always be folk who experiment, but sensible use of resources and sensible use of effort dictates that S35 will be the mainstay of cinematography for indie filmmakers and small production companies, and if Arri has read their horoscope correctly, maybe even for larger production companies.

[@gilbertquintereaudelachanc4906]

I didnt really understand the difference between the 65mm and the 70mm

[@MediaDivision]

65mm is the negative for 70mm projection film... the additional 5mm are used for audio tracks. Now... IMAX is 70mm as well, but running horizontally rather then vertically resulting in a much bigger frame. Basically the same as super35 film (vertical 35mm film) is to VistaVision (horizontal 35mm film).

[@gilbertquintereaudelachanc4906]

@@MediaDivision Now that's so clear. Thanks so much dude :)

[@hzubovi1]

Great video. Do You remember when RED launched, they released a plan for their cameras and the final biggest sensor was a 32K one, and this was more than 15 years ago. There was even a still image from the sensor.

[@MediaDivision]

Yeah... I remember vaguely. I don't remember if that was supposed to be still or motion - but I remember it was gigantic. Building an 18k 4x5 inch setup right now.... motion that is ;-)

[@baijunatarajan]

VERY GOOD VIDEOS. WORTH WATCHING....

[@MediaDivision]

Thanks Baiju

[@maanalselmi9211]

Amazing video keep Up the good work 👍🏻

[@MediaDivision]

Thanks Maan ... will try!

[@alexandrumacedon291]

ur using davinci , right ? i think i saw it in the background

[@MediaDivision]

Sometimes... we use the fitting software for each project. My KZbin videos are made in Premiere & After Effects