Does Sensor Size Matter?

[@kiribundi]

Let's be honest: A big reason why large format cinematography looks so good is because the DPs who have access to these cameras also have access to the most skilled crews out there. That's not to forget that only accomplished DPs use an Arri 65 or Imax

[@finnfransen_official279]

👏👏👏

[@carlosoruna7174]

Dont forget the optics

[@lightbulbscentmedia7889]

Big Big FACTS!!!

[@MonstroInLA]

I work on set in some of these films and I approve this message🤣

[@tobi2731]

Meh, it's because only a few of them are famous and perpetuate this image. If you look at every large format film ever made it's far more mixed how accomplished their cinematography is (also those large bulky cameras have obvious drawbacks). For every Lawrence of Arabia there's a Liebe in drei Dimensionen (German 70's soft-porno) and for every Tree of Life or The Master there's a Suicide Squad or modern Marvel film.

[@AxTechs]

Man, even if you already know what's being explained, these video are so stupidly entertaining that I can never miss one

[@zachyoungyuen]

True that, I just addicted to his video making style.

[@salvatoreocello]

Agreed

[@ko-Daegu]

Even if u are a complete bum in what’s he like me saying no idea at all Still entertaining

[@bencushwa8902]

Stills photographer here: another way to think about the impact of depth of field when changing up sensor sizes is to consider how closely you can focus no your subject. Even if you could compose an image the same way on two cameras with different sized sensors using the same lens, the camera with the smaller sensor would require you to stand further back from your subject. Since focus distance also impacts your DoF, this has roughly the same effect as switching to a shorter focal length lens and staying in the same place. If you're shooting something very far away, the two cameras will capture very similar images, but the closer you get to your subject the more dramatic the difference becomes. Great video, thanks for sharing.

[@pigreatlor]

great comment

[@innocentodeny6882]

Elementary! ..Watson. So it's all about lenses in the end?.

[@flyingfox2005]

Only about 13% of The Revenant was shot on the Alexa65. The majority was shot on the Alexa XT and M - which has a large S35 sensor... but the look of the film is usually talked about as being something unique to the 65mm format.

[@ausgeleiert]

13% xD where does that number come from

[@flyingfox2005]

@@ausgeleiert January 2016 American Cinematographer

[@flyingfox2005]

The Revenant ultimately relied on a combination of Arri Alexa cameras: the Alexa XT, which was used primarily for Steadicam and crane shots; the Alexa M, which was designated as the primary camera; and the new Alexa 65 system, an early version of which Arri made available to the filmmakers. According to Lubezki, approximately 13 percent of The Revenant was shot with the Alexa 65. “My preferred lenses are the [Arri/Zeiss] Master Primes and Leica Summilux-Cs,” Lubezki says. “A very small range of lenses.” His main lens was a Master Prime 14mm, with 12mm and 16mm used on occasion. He notes that the Leica lenses - of which the production employed the 16mm, the widest focal length available for that series - were particularly useful when a lighter-weight lens was warranted. As to the Alexa 65’s Prime 65 lenses - which utilize optics from Hasselblad HCs - the 24mm was the main lens, and a 28mm was used occasionally.

[@pondlakes]

@@ausgeleiert damn you got wreckt with knowledge!!!

[@bighands69]

People are still kidding them self that 65mm sensors means something.

[@MoviesRemastered]

Perfectly balance and paced content. Such a great channel.

[@merickful]

It truly is wonderful, I most certainly agree!

[@melvyn_ivy]

to be honest this makes Cuarón shooting Roma even more impressive, he really was like ‘Chivo isn’t available? Alright I’ll do it.” And did one of the most stunning visual experiences of the decade.

[@manuelsoto8028]

He took the credit from another photographer who was on set.

[@deardaughter]

What do you mean. What did he do on Roma that was special that I should look out for.

[@chrisjfox8715]

​@@deardaughteridk what this guy had in mind but I'd argue that Roma has some really great examples of Composition and Toning

[@boshooda]

Fantastic breakdown! avoids a lot of the misconceptions about focal lengths other channels cling to

[@daltonrandall4348]

What's one misconception?

[@ilyacosmonaut]

From the optical properties of the film, for example, not only the grain looks different on different formats, but also the glow effect, halation, often due to more visible effects, 16 mm are chosen.

[@Florianski]

Important detail to add: bigger sensors usually have more dynamic range due to bigger photosites

[@neutralfog]

Thank you for your input. I forgot about the dynamic range.

[@wright96d]

I don't believe the Alexa series has that advantage. They achieve bigger sensors by cutting out bigger chips from the same sheets of photosensitive silicon. So while you do end up with smaller noise on account of the larger overall image area, the photosites are all the same size no matter which camera. But for most other manufacturers this does ring true.

[@daltonrandall4348]

@@wright96d That's why he said "usually."

[@flyingfox2005]

@@daltonrandall4348 Larger photosites are actually the exception, not the rule when it comes to cinema cameras with larger sensors. As cinema camera sensors increase in size, the photosites "usually" stay the same and the resolution increases. The exceptions are cameras like the FX3 and FX6.

[@daltonrandall4348]

@@flyingfox2005 First of all, it's not like there are hundreds of options to choose from. Second of all, each manufacturer chooses a different approach. RED, for instance, has had different models of varying resolutions with similar sensor sizes. And yes, there is always an exception to the rule. The point is, you have the luxury with more surface area to increase the resolution, maximize sensitivity and dynamic range, or find a balance between the two. If a manufacturer chooses to piss the real estate away completely in favor of resolution, that's their problem - not that of the original poster.

[@gurratell7326]

Larger formats have a POTENTIAL to have shorter DoF. It is fully possible to stop down the lens to get the same DoF as a 16mm camera.

[@danielhuang2488]

but then you will require more light or shoot on a higher iso

[@OttoLP]

@@danielhuang2488 that is true. But in the video he says it like it automatically changes the dof. Sensor size doesn't affect distance compression or dof. Using a 50mm 1.4 on a ff give the same image a 50 1.4 equivalent lens does on any other sized sensor. The larger the sensor is the bigger a lens can be which usually gives larger sensor covering lenses a brighter equivalent aperture. When I started learning about photography I was always told that longer focal lengths create compression. In reality it's purely the distance to the subject that changes that. Cropping in a 30mm lens to 500mm equivalent give the same look as a 500mm lens (minus the horrendous quality)

[@danielhuang2488]

@@OttoLP yes, I'm glad some one get it. sometimes I even hear veteran cinematographers have the wrong idea. however the other point I was going to make was, it seems some people believe larger sensor is better, I kinda think it's the opposite. to get the same DoF, you will need to stop down on a larger sensor. you will need to up the iso, and that just means more noise and narrower dynamic range. how is that better? it's harder to expose for larger sensor since the light is spread out on to a bigger area.

[@arambaali]

@@danielhuang2488 it’s all relative. and it’s all a marketing gimmick anyways. holding the number of photo sites constant, larger sensors will allow for larger spacing/lower density, meaning you get a cleaner a image but then if you stop down and increase the gain, then you’re effectively back to square one. the only thing large format is good for is to siphon money away from more important elements. full frame and S35 are the ideal solutions only because of mass market economics. if you like to shoot with modern photography glass for autofocus purposes and smaller housing, then full frame is great. if you’re doing manual focus on cinema glass, then stick to S35.

[@OttoLP]

@@danielhuang2488 I'm actually not quite sure about that. Maybe you are right but, doesn't the missing light get compensated by the larger sensor? If the aperture is equivalent between different sensor sizes, doesn't that equate to the same total amount of light hitting the sensor? I haven't put much thought into this so far. I'll have to look into it and test it out myself. I always love to learn about these things. I have thought about diffraction starting to be a problem when stopping down a lens on a larger sensor compared to a the smaller one. I think getting an extremely large dof should be easier to achieve on a small sensor because the aperture stays wider open. I'm not totally sure about that either tho. (or does diffraction end up being the same using equivalent aperture?) edit: I did some tests, im not sure how accurate they are, but I couldt find a difference in dynamic range between aps-c 1,53x crop at 35mm f13 ISO 100 vs FF 1x crop at 54mm f20 ISO 250. Ill try smaller crops later on too see if the difference between apsc and ff is just too small. I didnt judge the detail difference because im using a single camera to generate both images, meaning that the resolution varies. Im not sure if i can just scale down the larger image and get conclusive results. The D850 in aps-c mode should represent an equivalent aps-c camera relatively well, because the pixel pitch is about the same (to a D500). If you have any objections to the testing, please let me know what im doing wrong.

[@LordWout]

This video came at the perfect time for me, I'm on the fence about buying a BMPCC 4K or 6k Pro because they have different sensors. This really helped me with understanding what the differences are.

[@Frontigenics]

I like the P4K because you can get a nearly full frame 1.2x (1.1x in DCI) speed booster that gives you the large-format look with fast lenses. The image from my P6k looks “small” and less interesting than what I get from the P4K XL booster combo

[@davetinoco]

I have both. I use both. I love both. Different uses. The 4k is great when I am doing a small documentary style project. My 6k is large and bulky but works great for professional work, music videos, etc

[@Lospollos24]

@@davetinoco what lenses do you recommend

[@davetinoco]

@@Lospollos24 “the ones you can afford.” It really depends. When I started out, I was using vintage Nikon lenses with a Viltrox adapter. As I got paid higher, I moved over to digital lenses. Panasonic makes some great lenses such as the 25mm f1.8 for MFT, the Panasonic Lumix 12-35 f2.8 II. There are also manual cine style lenses like Rokinon. Currently I am using Sigma glass - I own the 18-35 f1.8 and the 24-70 f2.8 Canon EF mount, with the Meta Bones adapter when I use them on MFT. These two lenses alone allow me to use them on my 4k (with adapter), my 6K natively, and even on Sony cameras with the Sigma MC-11 adapter. So currently my favorite is Sigma. But in a few years I am sure it will change yet again!

[@G.Riesinger]

@@davetinoco Are you reffering to the vintage lenses Nikkor Ai-s? I'm using them and they are great, but I'm using it on my gh5. I'm really hooked to vintage lenses for now.

[@autoblu6175]

It would be great if your next video explains the importance of color depth or bit depth, to know what shooting in 8 bit or 10 bit color is useful for.

[@christophermeraz-mata]

We can't really see more than 8 bits of color. However, if you're going to do a lot of color processing, it's best to start with 10 bits. Then, when you convert to 8 bits at the end, you won't see so many artifacts due to the color processing.

[@TehObLiVioUs]

HDR is the biggest one now that true HDR content is 10 bit (or 0-1023 shades of grey or R G B ) 8 bit content has color banding since it's only 0-255 so gradients are much more harsh along with being 16.7 million colors vs 1 BILLION colors

[@TehObLiVioUs]

​@@christophermeraz-mata that's only mostly be due to having only 8 bit monitors i'd have to argue like saying we can't see above 60 hz/60 fps also SEMI KINDA TRUE ONLY because 90% of monitors/TVs only go up to 60 hz

[@zoelubeck8232]

I normally dont comment on videos, but I just gotta say I really appreciate all of your videos. They are beautifully done, the VO is so well paced, and the info is actually relevant to people working in the industry. I've gotten a lot of clarity on things that still confuse me after 8 years working in film. Thanks!

[@PixPete]

I'll never forget the first time I saw The Dark Knight in 15/70 IMAX format. Having your entire field of view filled, including floor to ceiling it felt like you were watching a feature film on a theme park ride. Even though the scenes shot on Widescreen 65mm were perfectly crisp, it just took it to a whole new level when an IMAX scene comes on. The clarity was like looking through a window, and I've been in love with IMAX film ever since. Sadly, most directors now using that format aren't getting anywhere near the best from it like Nolan does, because they mess around with digital conversions and CGI. Only Nolan gets the best out of the format and it really is an event to look forward to when he releases new film every few years. The LieMAX digital screens are terrible and not worth the extra money.

[@olievans7840]

Yep couldn't agree more. The Dark Knight really is like looking through a window! I also was blown away by some of the imax shots on Mission Impossible: Fallout. I really hope IMAX does become more popular as like you say, once you've seen how good it is, everything else is mediocre.

[@PixPete]

@@olievans7840 Yeah MI Fallout was very good. Dunkirk has some breath taking shots as well especially the climax, and it's probably the one film that is almost entirely shot on IMAX film.

[@bighands69]

65mm film in 2.76:1 is more impressive in my opinion than the IMAX 2.2:1 ratio. The key today is that the whole of 70mm film on celluloid theater transfer could be used and a digital sound format can be used alongside it so that the sound track is not used on the celluloid. The only way you could tell the difference would be on a monster sized screen but there are so few theatres out there today like that. Sydney IMAX was the largest cinema screen in the world but it got ripped down and as far as I know they are going to be using digital.

[@diegocastillo6470]

I'm honestly impressed by how much I've learned with your videos. Thank you so so much for giving us all of this amazing information in such a noob-friendly format. I feel a little guilty watching this for free.

[@calvinatdrifterstudio8438]

I think that the 'bokehsize' overlap with equivalent lenses is so large, you could only tell the difference between sensor sizes in extreme cases. A lot of the point that people use to determine sensor size have more to do with lens speed and even vignetting. It's more relevant with digital cameras because of the potential for more dynamic range. Future innovation with digital sensors will change that. Short version: lenses are more significant than sensors. Find an equivalent lenses to what 'look' you want to get. If you have a small sensor, be carefull with extreme lighing.

[@charlesnorm4883]

Man, you literally cover everything on my mind when it comes to DOP'ing and you explain it such a understandable digestible way. If I ever get a chance to publicly thank people for my accomplishments as a filmmaker of any kind, you and you're channel would be on that list. Absolutely fantastic work and brilliant resource for every aspiring filmmaker out there today. Thank you!

[@roberthhom]

This video answers all of the most important questions I had about focal length and formats, it's so cool this is here for everyone, thank you

[@jakobwest4811]

I tried watching several videos explaining this topic. This was the only one that did a good job, with good visuals, and concise explanations. Thank you!

[@TheSynthnut]

Digital does not have native "grain" only noise. Smaller sensors tend to have smaller photosites and hence a poorer signal to noise ratio than larger ones, but that's not grain. Grain is specific to film emulsions and is different in every frame. Noise in digital systems relates to the fixed layout of photosites on a sensor when pixel noise, or greater areas in codec compression etc. You can introduce noise to liven up the image or use a grain texture layer to create the effect, but this is nothing to do with the sensor size, more a media format resolution.

[@Jorge_Ambruster]

Yes please. Someone else who's tired of people saying the words "digital grain". It's noise. It's always been noise. It was noise on VHS and it's noise today

[@TechnoBabble]

Noise in a digital system is not always related to the layout of photosites. In fact, most reviewers specifically point out when cameras have fixed pattern noise because it's fairly uncommon nowadays. The overwhelming majority of noise in modern cameras is mostly read noise at low ISOs and shot noise at higher ISOs, both of which ARE different each frame and neither of which have anything to do with the photosites themselves but rather the circuitry for reading from the sensor and the inherent randomness in the number of photons read by a photosite.

[@sudarshan1354]

Thank you for making this video. I've been asking this for a long time.

[@trill20000]

your videos are incredible. got into filmmaking this month and have learned more from your videos than all others on yt. cant wait to watch more!

[@claudiareina2689]

This video is so brilliant but I feel it got a bit radical on its second part. There is a lot of theory on sensor sizes that is incredibly complex but in shooting the only factors that really make a difference (I think) are both cost of equipment and lighting. The bigger the sensor, the more surface light can hit on and therefore it will have best results on low light conditions. Smaller sensor, worst results. This, however, can be corrected sometimes with software processing if you have the right equipment (the iphone night mode from iPhone 11 and on feels like witchcraft and I kid you not this is absolutely the best camera budget-results in the market for still photography in low light conditions and it is a tiny smartphone sensor) or if your equipment has proper stabilization software. The depth of field. At the state of technology nowdays you can get absolutely stunning depth of field with high quality lense manufactures on smaller sensors. Furthermore, there is this erroneous perception nowadays of the bokeh as the ideal cinematic look but this has not been the standar thorough cinema history pretty much ever until the last 10 years. I understand the appeal of the smooth bokeh but keep in mind this: with cheaper equipment such as DSLR + 50mm f.1.8 lenses (the well known cinema-student-on-a budget equipment) your results will look cheap and amateur. Raise that F number and delight yourself in the wonders of the everything in focus experience. And the best advice I ever got from a DoP: More lightbulbs and better lighting will always be a much adequate solution than huge investments on lower f stops lenses and bigger sensors. The differences between the sensor size and the final image are often than not absolutely marginal and only a super trained eye will be able to detect those. The size of your sensor will absolutely not define the end result of your project and there is a lot of sensor shaming in the industry already. Whatever you can afford and whatever you already have is the best and it is your creativity and talent that has to reach where your equipment will not be able to. Shooting, at the end of the day, is the act of constant problem solving :)

[@chrisbengtson6887]

I agree that people obsess over shallow depths of field as the objectively great "cinematic" look. Like yeah it's a really nice image and I guess it's cool that only the subject is in focus, but I hate when entire sequences or films are shot that way. It's harder for me to immerse myself in the world of whatever movie I'm watching if I can't see the environment. I wanna see some beautiful wide shots! Give me the "everything in focus experience"!

[@davefink2326]

@@chrisbengtson6887 agreed. It’s not about what you can do. It’s about what you want to say.

[@williamsolis1]

Sensor size absolutely matters. Comes down to application and intention. I don't think every movie needs to be filmed on 65mm/IMAX. Most of the films that i find absolutely beautiful are on super 35 and LF. Pair it with some nice glass and good lighting and it can look incredible

[@IanMRadcliffe]

absolutely great video. in some time, could you do a deep dive into lighting?

[@KeysPlays]

That's one of these KZbin Gems you find where a lot is so ejoyably explained in such a short video! great job - thank you so much!

[@viridianacortes9642]

More Intro Videos should be like yours. Keep it simple and basic until you get to more specific topics. I had to look up like ten videos before I finally found your video. You finally helped me get sensors! Finally!

[@mohit1eminem]

Very informative, very different from the usual information every other person gives. Appreciate the level of detailed insight given in photography/cinematography

[@cdreyes81]

it all depends on how you want your movie to look. Like, man, Nolan know what he's doing with that Imax and Joker look amazing. but like Casa Blanca looks amazing too.

[@joelee24]

Thanks for the detailed explanation in motion picture photography, I am not a movie/video guy I only shoot stills as hobby, so I have limited knowledge and experience in shooting video. There is one thing keeps bugging me is the 'resolution' of various format, let's put aside the visual rendition of image produced with different format and go back to the basic for the moment. Photographic films used in different format of the same sensitivity and type are made with the same material cut to size, so have the same 'pixel density' aka 'resolution', larger format naturally has higher 'pixel count' but not 'pixel density' than smaller format due to it's physical size, so that photo/video shoot with large format doesn't have higher resolution than smaller format, but can produce a larger output, projection or print without loss of quality as smaller format does. So that we can't simply say IMAX has higher resolution than 35mm, it's all depends on the output size, distance from screen and lens to use in shooting. For digital, larger sensors not necessarily have a lot more of pixels, but can have bigger Photosite thus lower resolution for higher sensitivity and better dynamic range and lower noise...etc. that's sound basic and simple, but ever since the digital age things get mislead and confused, many people go for large format partly for it's visual rendition of shallow DoF and high clarity on big screen, the rest are simply pixel peeper follower.

[@hi-five4960]

I loved this video. I would love to see a video with different examples of films who utilie these different sensor sizes. Maybe even how that elevates their stories!

[@brrrandonS]

"Longer focal lengths have a very shallow depth of field" Is maybe a little bit exaggerated. It makes it sound like a shallow depth of field is inherent to longer focal lengths. Where in reality the ultimate depth of field is decided by way more factors than focal length only. And you can easily create a large depth of field with a longer focal length too.

[@TechnoBabble]

Yes, technically depth of field is entirely dependent on the apparent size of the aperture through the front of the lens. But the relationship between the aperture size and the focal length is linear so getting equivalent background blur becomes increasingly unrealistic the farther apart the focal lengths are. To get the same background blur as a 24mm f2.8 on a 200mm lens with the same subject framing would require shooting at ~f22, so depending on the lighting situation that might not be feasible. The inverse also becomes difficult due to physics, to match the background blur of a 200mm f4 on a 50mm lens you would need to be shooting at f1. So while it's technically possible it's only worth trying to do for a very specific kind of shot, especially if you're using artificial lights.

[@HGQjazz]

We know. But, in the context of how he explained it it makes perfect sense. If you achieve a desired frame from the same blocking on a Super 35 and on a Large format, the depth of field will be shallower on the large format (like for like). Ultimately there are more options for shallow depth of field on longer lenses, faster lenses, and larger sensor formats.

[@deathtrap5556]

One of the cheat ways to get a shallow depth of field is using a macro lens on a dslr

[@arunashamal]

what are those factors that decide ultimate depth of field?

[@HGQjazz]

@@arunashamal aperture, focal length, distance to subject, distance to out of focus area.

[@spooky_leftist]

I'm a big fan of trying to mimic different sized formats, like shooting super 16 on slower film and sharp lenses at T2, or shooting digital with a tight T stop and high ISO.

[@VariTimo]

Apart from Super 16 you can get pretty close between all the medium sized formats. The Signature Primes on an LF will have the same max shallow depth of field as the Master Primes on a regular Alexa. Nothing has shallower depths of field than full frame with the exception of a few IMAX and Ultra Panavision 70 lenses. But if you shoot with an f0.95 or T1 lens on full frame you get a very similar max shallow depth of field. Although IMAX lenses are exceptionally high quality for their shallowness. There isn’t really a large format look. It’s all math and equivalencies.

[@brosephjames]

The faster lenses aren't going to be as sharp at equivalent depth of field though, because lenses get softer the faster they go. larger formats give that "3d look" that makes the images so immersive and it's a combo of their resolution and sharpness while maintaining separation with the background. im sure FF with the right lenses can emulate the 65mm look pretty well. but nothing is going to look like imax 70mm

[@VariTimo]

@@brosephjames I agree that there’re no lenses sharp and fast enough to get close to 65mm 15-perf and this size of film actually has some very slightly smoother tones too.

[@rfx8459]

I believe the large format look refers moreso to the way the camera compresses the foreground and the background. Large format cameras tend to be more flattering for many talents in Hollywood as they look a little more accurate to reality due to the field of view at the sensor, and not the field of view at the lens which are two very different things.

[@VariTimo]

@@rfx8459 That’s a misconception not debunked by camera manufacturers to sell new toys. They put interview snippets of DPs talking about that into their promotional material which makes it feel like they’re saying it, even tho they’re not. You can match the frame of a Super 35 image to an LF image entirely, both in terms of perspective distortion (what many call compression) and blur circles. People argue all sort of BS how large format lenses have different distortion or characteristics which is all BS too. You think it wasn’t possible for Zeiss or Panavision to make a perfectly straight lens for smaller image planes? There is some great stuff about all that on Steve Yedlin’s website under the link: “Other Tech Stuff”. Especially: “Common Misconceptions About Large Format Optics” and the next three beneath that.

[@bighands69]

The vast majority of audiences are not going to notice DP but what they are going to notice is how clear an image is. Digital theatres do not look good and their pixels on screen are very noticeable and you have to sit further back to not see it and if you do that the imagine will look smaller. Digital is great for home experiences on TV and projector screens it simply is not the best option for theaters. I would love to see a digally shot film in theatres but on a celluloid format.

[@elijahsakiya]

This beautifully produced video (as usual) missed the opportunity to debunk one of the most common and large-spread misconceptions that is still leaving confusion from what I see in the other comments. The *simplest explanation*, without any mathematical formulas or mumbo jumbo, to understand why larger sensor *allows* (important wording) shallower depth of field, is in one word: distance (edit: relative to focal length). As the lens is closer to the subject on larger sensors/films, it allows for a closer focus which results in a higher background separation. Almost any sensor/film can be closely matched, up to the opto-physical limitations. High speed "S35" lenses (f/.95 or T1.3, etc) highly contribute to it. Similarly to why an f/2.8 medium-format lens is quite fast relative to its equivalent on 24x36, and so on. Side note: a digital sensor does not capture images but light-data (in a radiometrically linear fashion, although often encoded by default to an opto-electronic *logarithmic* transfer function) that is then formed into an image. In the professional industry, this stage is defined as image-formation.

[@christophermeraz-mata]

Why is the camera closer to the subject on larger sensor cameras? Comparing a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera to an 80mm lens on a full frame camera, for example, shouldn't the angle of view and therefore the distance from the subject be the same?

[@wright96d]

@@christophermeraz-mata Yeah, this person either doesn't know what they're talking about, or is simply connecting the wrong dots. The answer is focal length and little more. If you plop down 5 different cameras with 5 different sensor sizes in the same exact spot, use the lens that each camera requires to achieve an equivalent field of view, and open the apertures up all the way, the largest format sensor will have the shallowest depth of field, as longer focal lengths achieve shallower DoF. They achieve that shallow DoF no matter what size sensor you put them on, but since the larger sensor actually allows you to see a much wider image with a longer focal length, you're able to achieve a more shallow DoF as compared to smaller sensors. In fact, if you stop down each lens accordingly so each lens has approximately the same DoF, the images will look damn near identical. Back to OP, I think they're making a comment on how when using the same focal length of lens, you have to step further back from the subject in order to get a similar field of view. But when doing that, you get a completely different image, one that is incomparable to the one on the larger format sensor. The correct way to do it is to swap lenses to a shorter focal length. You lose depth of field, but you achieve similar image compression as compared to the longer lens on the larger sensor. Edit: I'm now seeing the video sent over all of this...

[@elijahsakiya]

​@@wright96d Focal lengths is indeed and obviously implied. I prefer to keep my comments short on socials (not the most appropriate places for long-elaborated informative text). I will make a short edit for clarification purposes. I appreciate you complementing my comment.

[@wright96d]

@@elijahsakiya I'm not sure if this part was there before or not, but what did you mean about f2.8 being faster on medium format compared to Super35?

[@elijahsakiya]

@@wright96d Not what it says nor meant.

[@samsungminlee]

Incredibly insightful as always! Thank you. This video should be shown in all cinematography classes, amazing how you summed up the differences in 10 minutes :D

[@saikatchattopadhyay8263]

7:30 probably incorrect , smaller sensors have shallower depth of field due to smaller circle of confusion but Crop Factor,Image distance etc play a major part. However, I don’t think the comments get read. Anyway check out the John Hess video on Depth of Field for better understanding.

[@RootCinemas]

Thank you for the comment and mentioning John Hess

[@diegoalfredocontrerasvilla4873]

your voice calms me down man, i love your videos. i've learned a lot, greetings from chile!!

[@nicktasteless360]

unrelated but the music choice in this video is so good i really love Planets and Linda

[@MTG776]

Good video... I find the Super 35 can handle it all with a few lens changes here and there...

[@matoflynn]

Best explanation I’ve seen. Thank you.

[@pierrezapata90]

Love your videos. Very informative.funny...even though i know this stuff, your production is so good and entertaining. I always watch

[@EM-ve9bh]

This was an excellent video, thank you so much! One thing I struggle with is understanding how all the different aspect ratios fit on 35mm film or how cropping a negative from 4 perf to 3 or 2 perf makes the image widescreen? Isn't it just less data?

[@ismailbentaouet]

To be honest , I feel like a child when I watching your videos, Come on they are more than perfect, I really can’t found the words to thank you

[@WestonNey]

A large sensor gives you a wider field of view. You can use a tight lens like an 85 and you still have a very wide field of view, making the image feel large and lifelike. It feels like you’re there in the moment. A smaller sensor, even if you use a wider lens to accommodate, will still feel more compressed, like you’re peering through a little hole into the film’s world. Field of view and perspective are what make the image have a different feel. If you look through a wide angle peephole, it has a very different look to just looking into the run through an open door. You seemingly have the same field of view, but the image feels large and lifelike through the open door. That’s an easy way to think of small vs large format. Of course technically you can use a wide lens on small sensor and a tight lens on large sensor to get an identical looking field of view, but the compression will look very different. Sensor size is a stylistic choice and makes a huge difference. For most people it’s a subconscious difference. I’ve worked with large format and small format cinema cameras and they all have their own looks. Sensor size objectively changes the feel of the film.

[@flyingfox2005]

This is the central myth that everyone repeats about larger formats... and it's simply not true. If you control both focal length and aperture used on a specific format, you can match the look across formats (except in the most extreme cases). If you use relative focal lengths and relative apertures, the images will look the same. The only differences will be resolution and the character of specific optics. Large sensors do not change how perspective works. A 50mm F4 lens on FF / 135 will match the angle of view and the blur or a 25mm F2 lens on MFT. The 50mm on FF / 135 and the 25mm on MFT will also have the identical perspective distortion, as this is product how how close the camera is to the subject... not the lens. I suggest watching the video below which shows clearly how footage in the Alexa Mini (S35) and the Alexa65 can be matched by using relative focal lengths and relative apertures. The very minor differences visible are simply due to the optics used in this test. The Arri DNA primes used on the Alexa65 are rehoused vintage optics, so less corrected than the Signature 18mm used on the Alexa mini. kzbin.info/www/bejne/iKjKnIuZir1sbpY

[@CUTproductionsLtd]

@@flyingfox2005 Well put, Daniel. The differences in DOF characteristics, on any given range of standard lenses, between say 1/3" and 2/3" video camcorders and Super 35 are rather more marked than between Super 35 and FF. Infact it's rather easy to match the latter two formats, in this regard. There is nothing mystical and magical about FF and sensor size does not 'objectively' change the feel of the film, in of itself - for over 125 years the 'Super 35' framesize, has never been lacking in cinematic quality, for some of world's greatest filmmakers. FF digital didn't suddenly change that. And some films, Citizen Kane, is always touted, but Vertigo also (shot on VistaVision, or FF if you will) have some remarkably deep DOF cinematography.

[@flyingfox2005]

@@CUTproductionsLtd it's actually quite funny when you look at the number of huge movies that have actually shot on very small video sensors. The original Avatar used the Sony F950 which has a 2/3" CCD sensor. No one complained... no one even noticed. And you're right S35 and FF are very easy to match, certainly on modern cameras where the ISO can be rated higher with very little visible noise. "Full frame" movies have existed since the 1950s in the form of VistaVision and I very much doubt anyone would be able to tell which movies used this format, even though at the time there were some clear benefits in the photochemical world. The system failed for other reasons... mainly the practicalities of large cameras and little to no perceptual difference. I think the obsession with FF comes from peoples perception that "video" before the 5D lacked shallow DOF as all cameras must have had tiny 1/3" or 3"4" sensors... when in fact cameras like the Sony PMW F3 already existed and were marketed as having "a large 35mm sensor".

[@CUTproductionsLtd]

@@flyingfox2005 Absolutely, Daniel. It's a buzz thing now, from young people who perhaps never knew they absolutely had to have it. We could only dream of the cameras we have now around 2005 when 1/3" sensors were all, ordinary people, like me, could afford. There was a huge difference between that and full scale cinema cameras. But now just about any camera has superb DR, resolution and more than adequate 'cinematic' DOF characteristics. This well meaning video is slightly misleading in this latter regard and I'm glad you alluded so.

[@flyingfox2005]

@@CUTproductionsLtd I shot for the first 10 years of my career using very small video sensors, so never understood the whole "full" frame concept. I shot stills on 35mm film and never felt the need to blend the two mediums and adjust focal lengths to their equivalents. It's a buzz word and worse it's marketing to nudge people into feeling they need to "upgrade" to a larger sensor. I've seen some camera makers even say that only on their full frame sensors do lenses display their correct mm with no crop factor... S35 and MFT... even S16 with the right lenses (and skills) can all produce excellent images. We rarely use FF / 135, but when we do it's also fun... the main difference is we simply use a 50mm instead of a 35mm and close down a stop.

[@wv_]

Flange distance (I assume less applicable to cinema) and format size also impacts optical quality with larger format lenses being easier to make for the same image quality with flaws / variations less critical compared to the overall image with artifacts being smaller as well. A medium format Zeiss Planar will have a sharper image than the full frame equivalent and aspherical elements used in some lenses easier to manufacture as the tolerances are less critical. Flange distance also seems to impact this with EF mount vs M-mount planars having very different levels of sharpness due to a simpler retrofocal group. I wonder if films like 500T can be pushed an extra stop going from s35 to 65mm without too much of an image hit. I wonder if larger image sensors have a higher native iso?

[@bryancastillo8408]

Great video brother, just what i needed.

[@Hussein_Nur]

Thank you. Ive been waiting for this.

[@CameronKiesser]

I love the IMAX look. We need IMAX ratio TVs.

[@allenpayne9182]

Great video. As always. Imagine in 10, 20 years there will be a "Pocket Camera" with a Large Format Sensor and 15 stops dynamic range. And HDR TVs. Like in music.. every one can buy a guitar and a drumkit. Not everyone can buy an orchestra. Everyone has a camera theese days (smart phone), but image in the future everyone is carrying around a "large format cinema sensor" camera.

[@hydromaniac7117]

More like 5 years, I personally own a BMPCC 6k, which I got for only 1400$ and has 13 stops of Dynamic Range and a super 35 sensor.

[@neutralfog]

It is not possible to have a large sensor in a small device you carry in your pocket. Which brings us to the question: Is technology limitless?

[@Skrenja]

@@hydromaniac7117 The difference between 13 and 15 stops of DR is gigantic.

[@Skrenja]

@@neutralfog Yes but it could potentially be cheated with software in the future.

[@Malouco1]

The batman was a great example of smaller depth of field with larger film

[@CescoEva]

A very well-made video about sensors, thank you!

[@youuuuuuuuuuutube]

I don't really agree with some of the points, like the larger formats have a shallower depth of field, that depends on the lens and the aperture size, which can be modified by the operator. So you can absolutely get a deeper depth of field even with a larger format. You can also increase the amount of noise as much as you want. Basically you have a lot more freedom with a larger format than with a smaller one, you can easily emulate the look of the small format with a large one, but the opposite is certainly not true.

[@kiju0923]

He was talking about achieving the same frame between the different sensors

[@TechnoBabble]

​@@kiju0923 So find me a lens used for IMAX that has shallower DoF than an f/1.2 lens on full frame/LF.

[@HenrikoMagnifico]

Larger formats also usually perform better in low light

[@creativevisiongaming]

Why is The Dark Knight in the thumbnail in a video about sensor size when that movie was shot on film?

[@MrCat-db1on]

I am so in love with your work! Its like inspiring meditation. Greatings from Germany

[@AydanM]

It’s not about the size of your sensor, it’s about how you use it

[@rzemanuel]

I know you are trying to simplify things, but newcomers will get thing wrong for a few years with this explanation. Depth of field is not determined from the focal length its from the size of the pupil, so a 25mm can have identical blur circles to a 50 mm if the pupil is the same size, the same size pupil does not share the same aperture though, this extra layer of complexity for the subject will be lost for a couple years for new folks when they learn it this way. Also the 3D look of large format is a myth, 3D perception is dependent on perspective. Perspective is not dependent on the sensor size, its dependent on the FOV, and the distance to subject. At some point we have to describe concepts not as binary relationships but as a relationship between dependent variables, and we have to get those dependent variables right.

[@HiFinnnn]

Fantastic video! I'd love to hear you talk about "blue bayou" :)

[@hnalike7778]

priceless info in plain english. thanks alot buddy

[@YeshwanthReddy]

This has been nothing short of enlightening

[@digitaldevigner4080]

Part of why we needed larger frame sizes is ironically film does not capture as high of resolution as digital sensors can today. Film does not work in pixels but there is a certain point where no more detail is resolved with film due to film grain and many other factors. Film stocks used for VFX could resolve more detail but they were very expensive to use. Typically s35mm resolved around 3600 pixels wide. Today even a tiny iPhone sensor can resolve 8k resolution. Film at 1/3" wide could never do that. Digital sensors have long size surpassed film detail and acutance. The glass in front of high resolution sensors is now more of an acutance limiting factor than the sensors themselves. In many cases the sensors are now just rendering blobs of soft pixels due to glass limitations. This has been accentuated by the obsession with shallow DOF and low light shooting where people shoot with lenses wide open at f1.2 or f1.8. We are optically starving what digital sensors can do. Even on the photography side most FF lenses resolve around 24MP and not 45 MP or higher. This is where digital has surpassed film as well. A straight 1:1 4k s35mm sensor already can resolve more detail than s35mm film can except for the most fine 50 ASA film stocks. A lot of sensors now use over sampling where the delivered 4k resolves even more acutance. Way beyond what film ever could. Many cinema sensors are now 5k, 6k or even 8k. So while 65mm and IMAX film sound impressive the reality is smaller digital sensors already easily achieve those levels of detail and acutance. 48mm wide 70MM Panavision resolves around roughly 7200 wide. The FF 8192 wide 8k sensor on the Canon R5 cameras can resolve more detail with a significantly smaller sensor. The other factor is grain. Film had to go super large to make the grain finer. Digital can have virtually no noise or grain at all with a much smaller size. This is why its more of obsessive nostalgia to really worry about film sizes. We have reached the point now where getting the "film look" whatever the heck that means, is actually dumbing down the quality. Digital is cleaner and much more detailed than film ever could be at the same sensor size. Our limiting factor now is optics which based on the fact people want to dumb down digital to match film maybe that's not really a limiting factor after all. Perhaps softer lenses are the solution to force digital back down to those acutance levels. 65mm digital seems rather pointless to me however except to make use of those much better resolving lenses. Seems to me a better solution if one wants that level of detail is to just make better glass for s35mm and FF sensors. The FF R5 cameras for example can already resolve 65mmm levels of detail. Some high end lenses can resolve that as well so we kind of already have what 65mm film was capable of. There is the DOF and FOV factor of course but FF already can have some pretty razor thin DOF and pretty darn wide FOV. Do we really want/need more than that? Especially when one factors in a FF lens may be used more wide open than a 65mm lens might be in a traditional movie where it was stopped down more. At this point the only really limiting factor of a FF photo size sensor is lens quality. Its going to be very difficult to make lenses that can resolve a lot more than 8k video. That's where moving to a larger sensor format will make more sense. The glass can actually resolve more detail. This is all assuming the 65mm film we can now achieve on FF 8k digital is not good enough. That's pretty darn detailed. I'm willing to bet good 8k digital shot with a really good lens transferred to IMAX would look very impressive. Digital also helps eliminate the need for anamorphic. Despite what some may think cropping film was way more common than anamorphic was. Since digital can resolve a lot more detail it can be cropped to 2.35:1 or 2.4:1 and likely resolve more acutance than what anamorphic on s35mm ever could. At one point anamorphic was about faking larger sizes and a unique aesthetic look. Today on digital its almost entirely just about the aesthetic look. A look that may not even be that desired by general audiences. Anamorphic is neat but at the end of the day its just a creative look more than anything now. Like an Instagram filter. A look that may not be worth all the added effort. s35mm 2.4:1 anamorphic is roughly 3,600x2,800 in terms of resolving detail. That was then optically stretched out to look wider but it would not add detail. Its just a blown up softer form of 3,600 wide. 8k at 8192 cropped 2.4:1 on the other hand resolves 8192x3413 with no stretching at all. That's pure resolved pixel detail. Our FF 8k sensors today resolve a massive amount of finer detail than traditional anamorphic ever could.

[@immop]

Your videos are really well done and super interesting!👏🏻

[@thorgeberger8285]

Very helpful explanation! 👍

[@richardsisk1770]

This is very nicely done. Thank you 😊

[@adeladam2325]

rewatching this a year later and my understanding of cinematography has come so far lol

[@timmprozell8879]

Very good and well explained video. Perfect! 👍

[@jamescaldwell5]

Great explanation!

[@EveTheBoneQueen]

As someone who mainly comes from a stills background, wouldn't the field of view bit about how sensor size effects lens choice be the other way around? if a "Large Format" full frame sensor is the same size as a full frame sensor in a stills camera, then you wouldn't use a 50mm lens to get a 35mm field of view. 50mm on full frame is always 50mm. 35mm on super 35 - closer to an APS-C/APS-X size stills sensor - would equate to a 50-55mm depending on what type of APS sensor it is Again, I'm from a stills photography background, so maybe things are measured differently, but that section of the video confused me, as Full Frame has always been the "Baseline" or "leveraging point" for focal lengths in stills photography. 50mm is always 50mm, 35mm is always 35mm, so on and so on

[@flyingfox2005]

Focal length is the physical distance from the point of convergence inside the lens to the sensor... put a 50mm on FF / 135, MFT, S16, even an iphone and it never changes. A 50mm on FF is a 50mm. A 35mm on S35 is a 35mm. A 35mm lens on S35 is NOT and can never be a 50mm lens. That is the lens you'd use to match AOV on a FF / 135 sensor camera. On S35 you use focal lengths 1.5x wider (compared to FF / 135) for the same angle of view. But the 35mm on S35 is always a 35mm. Focal lengths do not change on different sensors or film formats, what changes is the AOV... so if you want a specific angle of view on a larger or smaller format... all that changes is your choice of focal length. 50mm on FF /135 32mm on S35 25mm on MFT 16mm on S16 These are all focal length equivalents. On each format these lenses give the same angle of view... But the focal lengths themselves - never change. A 16mm on S16 is not "really" a 50mm. Anyone who says a 16mm lens on S16 is "effectively a 50mm lens" - doesn't understand anything to do with optics. Talking on baselines... in cinematography "full frame" is not a thing... lenses choices are made from 35mm motion picture standard (3 or 4 perf) which equates to a modern S35 sensor. So if I DP wants a standard lens on LF, they'd start with a 35mm lens on S35 - times the focal length by 1.5 to get a 52 (50)mm lens.

[@ConradoMataloni]

What is the film you are refering to in the small formats? in lve with this channel 🖤

[@joaquinferreira2302]

Beasts of the southern wild

[@sternschnupper]

a small detail in here: while "full frame" is a common phrase in digital still cameras, it itself is a reference to the "full frame" of photographic 35mm film cameras - and although shot on the exact same film as super 35 it is bigger because the image is placed along the film vs. perpendicular on super 35. from a german speaking photography standpoint the name "full frame" is kind of funny, as the german phrase for it is "kleinbild" wich translates as "small format", in reference to medium format like 6x6 cm and large format like 4x5 inch.

[@bighands69]

Digital tends to use lots of nonsense phrases to trick people into believing it means something. You will hear people talking about DP and nonsense like that but very few people in a cinema watching a movie are going to notice such details but will notice the pixels on screen.

[@potatofuryy]

@@bighands69 I Mean it does mean something, it means it isn’t APS-C, Micro four thirds or Large format.

[@bighands69]

@@potatofuryy It is just spec sheet jargon and has no real impact on the experience the audience has.

[@NBCmotion]

Perspective has nothing to do with sensor size. It's merely the location of the sensor in a scene. Place a large format camera and a small format camera in precisely the same location and the perspective will be the same. The field of view and distortion of the image will vary depending on lens selection, but even with those variations, the perspective remains identical.

[@stevenfries7032]

I guess he should have said "they style of the perspective".

[@zr_1234]

Definitely not and it's shown in the video itself. Larger sensors are able to get wider fov's while having a background that's more dominant. Even if you correct the sensor to have identical framing there will still be distortions.

[@rfx8459]

That is false. Imagine the gap between your eyes is shrunken to nothing, now the world around you appears to be more bulbous less accurate. That’s a small sensor. Now increase the distance between your eyes and you notice that everything around you starts to compress and the background begins to dominate over the foreground. You’re also now able to see around some objects if they’re skinny enough. Able to see geometry that wouldn’t otherwise be visible on a Super 35 no matter what lens or placement of the camera you use. That’s large format. Sensor size variations exist because they provide a very different look. And Large format and imax are gaining popularity because their images are closer to the way the human eyes see the world.

[@flyingfox2005]

@@rfx8459 This is the central myth that everyone repeats about larger formats... and it's simply not true. If you control both focal length and aperture used on a specific format, you can match the look across formats (except in the most extreme cases). If you use relative focal lengths and relative apertures, the images will look the same. The only differences will be resolution and the character of specific optics. Large sensors do not change how perspective works. A 50mm F4 lens on FF / 135 will match the angle of view and the blur or a 25mm F2 lens on MFT. The 50mm on FF / 135 and the 25mm on MFT will also have the identical perspective distortion, as this is product how how close the camera is to the subject... not the lens. I suggest watching the video below which shows clearly how footage in the Alexa Mini (S35) and the Alexa65 can be matched by using relative focal lengths and relative apertures. The very minor differences visible are simply due to the optics used in this test. The Arri DNA primes used on the Alexa65 are rehoused vintage optics, so less corrected than the Signature 18mm used on the Alexa mini. kzbin.info/www/bejne/iKjKnIuZir1sbpY

[@daltonrandall4348]

​@@flyingfox2005 Except you can rarely control aperture (in the way you're describing) on a camera with a smaller sensor size, unless you happen to have T/0.4 lenses lying around. That's why it's not a myth... physics agrees with you, but reality doesn't.

[@henrikjohansson6629]

Quick question, which I couldn't find the answer to in the video or the description: What's the movie you use as example of S16? Haven't seen it, but it looks like something I'd want to watch. Normally when someone wants an example of S16 they just use Black Swan. 😉

[@ahmadbani1452]

Holy shit I was just wondering about this. Thanks IDC!

[@MOATEZcom]

Good video, Thank you.

[@OREGONCOASTCHANNEL]

This was wonderfully informative.

[@seanduncan3846]

The tighter field of view in smaller formats is good for achieving a more "telescopic" or hole-in-the-wall angle to your subject, almost as if you are watching the subject from a farther distance. Whereas the large format makes the subject feel more intimate. Both angles can be advantageous to your storytelling when utilized properly.

[@Johnsormani]

Very nice overview

[@neutralfog]

An amazing video from an essential channel.

[@dracolax5]

Isn't shallow depth of field dependent on lens aperture rather than focal length?

[@davidjamesshaver]

It depends on both, amongst other variables :) photographylife.com/what-is-depth-of-field

[@simonmueck]

Such a useful video! Thx for that :)

[@wayoftruth8428]

What everyone ignores however is that depth of field is not directly related to sensor size but more directly to its interpretation to the sensor as it exits the flange. Hence a longer 135mm lens will create a far shallower depth of field on a 35mm camera from a head shot than a LF sensor would while the opposite is only true for wider lenses. This of course is in terms of LF lenses as a 35mm lens will not cause crop due to its flange being measured for 35mm.

[@daltonrandall4348]

There's nothing to ignore. When you shoot an image, all you care about is what's in the frame. You have to change your lens (or move the camera) to achieve a similar frame on a camera with a different sensor size, so while it's not the sensor size which is physically affecting the change, the sensor size does dictate the lens/distance you have to shoot at, and that affects the depth of field. So yeah, sensor size absolutely affects it whether you choose to call it "directly" or not.

[@wayoftruth8428]

@@daltonrandall4348 no I get that and because of that there are alot of advantages to shooting FF. I just mean that there are people (mostly newbies) that think you get "more" dof with a larger sensor size when it's actually just about getting better dof at closer distances. It's really just about shooting preferences. I prefer deep dof only with close ups and love the filmography from the 80s-90s with wide shots being super closed so i prefer s35 since its a good middle ground. But if someone prefers shallower dof at closer distances and wider lenses that's fine it's just not my style.

[@daltonrandall4348]

@@wayoftruth8428 Newbies think you get less depth of field with larger sensor size, and they are correct for all of the reasons I stated.

[@wayoftruth8428]

@@daltonrandall4348 I have met some who think that but out of most of the people I teach I find they not only think that but that good gear just makes you more talented. I will say though there'd just something about highlight role off that most s35 sensors do different that I just kind of love. What do you usually shoot with?

[@daltonrandall4348]

@@wayoftruth8428 Good gear definitely doesn't make you more talented, but it can make the final work better - something that most people tend to scoff at. There is a reason we use the best tools we can afford. I'm not sure what sensor size has to do with highlight rolloff, but I think most people also prefer soft, subtle rolloff to harsh clipping. I personally think Arri makes the best image (I don't care for the RED look), but I can't afford an Alexa 65. For cost to quality ratio, Sony's FX6 in Slog3 is probably the best value out there. Not only is the rolloff in the highlights nice, but it comes with the built-in ability of not needing a focus puller. :)

[@LiamSolo]

Technically neither sensor size or focal length of the lens affect depth of field. Sorry to be 'that' guy but you can test it yourself. The more cropped in (or narrower focal length) the more separation yes, but it's because you're honing in on the contrast between in focus and out of focus elements, its the 'blur' contrast between them that creates the separation. while the actual amount of 'blur' stays the same. Take a vid on a 24mm f2.8 and then again on a 50mm but don't move your body, crop in post to match and you'll see that it's the same level of 'blur' on the out of focus background in both. The difference in depth of field comes when you change your distance to your subject matter, larger sensors allow you to be closer while maintaining the desired framing. The same cam position on a FF or m43 with the same lens will be the same depth, but one will be a mid and one a close-up, you move the m43 into a mid and you lose 'blur' because you're moving the cam (and focus distance) further, if you change to a wider lens you lose 'blur' because you're effectively having less of the contrasted focal planes fill your frame.

[@gabrielbaruck9152]

Hate to be that guy but u just explained why sensor size and lens changes depth of field, u said that if u use different lens but stay at same place that depth it's the same, yes it's and that's why sensor size matters, by having a large medium format u can be way more closer to ur subject which increase blur

[@LiamSolo]

@@gabrielbaruck9152 I'm not saying sensor size doesn't matter... it just doesn't directly affect the actual depth of field (amount in focus and out of focus), all else being equal.

[@TechnoBabble]

@@gabrielbaruck9152 DoF is ONLY changed by the entrance pupil of the lens and the distance the lens is focused at. That's it, that's all. Larger sensors do not magically allow you to "be way more closer" to a subject.

[@TheArtist441]

Great video!! Was that a South African accent I heard??

[@TheNegative]

I hear it’s not the size of the censor but how you use it.

[@Skrenja]

You can build a house with primitive tools but wouldn’t you want to use the best stuff?

[@vimalmanoharan2004]

Great work dude

[@i_so_late]

can you do a cinematography style video on Linus Sandgren? I thought No Time To Die was ridiculously gorgeous

[@hussainalkhoridh3406]

Very informative thanks

[@arambaali]

The second part is objectively false, sensor size is part of a larger equation in the physics of optics. The full-frame and large format looks are mere myths. aperture, focal length and image circle all relate to each other, and there are boundaries to what is physically allowed. S16 lenses can be as wide as 7.5 mm if not wide, with aperture as low as 0.95 or lower (hedging here). Whereas I believe it’s impossible to find such lenses for 65 mm or IMAX or even full frame.

[@Amaraldo]

Right.. but there are benefits. Lenses made for larger sensors will have higher f stops (when matching AoV & blur circles with s35 lenses) and so will exhibit less aberration + won't become diffraction limited as soon. With that said, there is nothing magical or specific to larger formats that creates a greater depth of field. There is no large format look. Just technical benefits that, when combined, give you greater spatial fidelity.

[@raymondzrike]

There are no f.95 S16 lenses. The fastest S16 lenses in existence are T1.3 or f1.2. If you’re talking about m43 lenses, then yes faster lenses exist, but they’re pretty terrible wide open. You can achieve the same exact image with S16 as S35 or VV, but ultimately, given the same film stock or sensor technology, the larger format will have higher resolving power. And the depth of field of a Master Prime wide open on S35 is impossible with any current lenses on S16.

[@WestonNey]

You don’t know what you’re talking about. A larger sensor gives you a wider field of view. You can use a tight lens like an 85 and you still have a very wide field of view, making the image feel large and lifelike. It feels like you’re there in the moment. A smaller sensor, even if you use a wider lens to accommodate, will still feel more compressed, like you’re peering through a little hole into the film’s world. Field of view and perspective are what make the image have a different feel. If you look through a wide angle peephole, it has a very different look to just looking into the run through an open door. You seemingly have the same field of view, but the image feels large and lifelike through the open door. That’s an easy way to think of small vs large format. Of course technically you can use a wide lens on small sensor and a tight lens on large sensor to get an identical looking field of view, but the compression will look very different. Sensor size is a stylistic choice and makes a huge difference. For most people it’s a subconscious difference. I’ve worked with large format and small format cinema cameras and they all have their own looks. Sensor size objectively changes the feel of the film.

[@arambaali]

@@WestonNey Please don’t perpetuate a false narrative

[@WestonNey]

@@arambaali perhaps you should go educate yourself on this topic. It’s quite fascinating how FOV and compression work together. Sensor size and glass work together to create so many different feels to the video. I know you’re too stuck in your ways to listen to new info, but for your own sake as a filmmaker you should look into this more. It’s fascinating.

[@roehaus1]

I shoot M-4/3 and can achieve any look that I choose. Having a hammer in your hand does not make you a carpenter.

[@goestryder6261]

This video is well done!

[@forever__young]

Great article !

[@roccobot]

3:13 what movie is that? I feel I should know it but can't remember

[@mastrepratik3212]

Guys, at most part of life. if you ever wonder "Does size matter?" Answer always will be: Yes

[@MartinRMcGowan]

Obligatory “it’s how you use it” joke here

[@romain_do]

great video. thanks for sharing

[@w02190219]

really helpful. thks

[@rambey5945]

Which format would be best for music videos?

[@howardron543]

Love info vids that will escape my brain after a few mins... Still love yours more tho

[@JeffBourke]

IMAX cool cool. What portion are actually going to see it on imax though? Seems kinda silly.