Effect of Red's FF35 to Industry?

[david farland]

What effect will Red's 6K full frame camera (and lenses) have on the industry?
with it's.....
- film like dynamic range
- greater luma/chroma information
- tighter depth of fields

To me this is similiar to what R1 promised and gave the industry.
So, on paper it looks like the Red FF35 will have a similiar effect.
Also, is this a beginning on the convergence of cine/still formats?

What do you think?

note, answers to leave out: nobody needs more pixels, investment in older technologies with prevent this, R1 killed film anyway, always use right camera for the right job.

Dave,

[I Bloom]

I think it's not a steady progression, but an ebb and flow with a general trend toward digital.

I'm not sure that full frame as a shooting format will be ideal. I think that 35mm was settled on as a film format in part because it is a great compromise between resolution, economics of film stock and most importantly the physics of lenses (in terms of light transmission and depth of field). The same parameters apply to digital cameras though the "film stock" in this case is significantly less expensive.

So my guess is 4.5K-5K will be the capture format for most feature films and television shows even after FF35 and 645 are available. While 6K+ will definitely be used... I think it is more useful for still and specialty films. Just a guess. Pretty hard to predict. I'll definitely shoot a film in 28K just to say I did.

To answer your question. The real film killer, so to speak is dynamic range and sensitivity. If you can make a digital format that rolls off highlights like film and treats skin tones well, reacts as well as film in low light then you'll have a film killer. In the next few years however I'm expecting a brief resurgence of 35mm and 16mm, as people try to differentiate themselves from digital cinema and discover how good these new Kodak stocks are.

Still photographers want to shoot video until they figure out what it means not to use strobes and shoot everything at 48th of a second. So while the cameras might merge, the professions are less likely.

I definitely could be very very wrong ;)

IBloom

[Tom Lowe]

The only thing that will hold back FF35 is lack of lenses. But once that problem is solved, I think everyone will want to shoot on FF35. And why not? Perhaps you might want to shoot deep focus, and choose something with a smaller sensor, but generally speaking, FF35 should be king.

With digital stills cameras, once you go FF35, you never go back. And why would you? FF35 produces far superior images to cropped-sensor (S35) cameras. More resolution, better light sensitivity, less noise, more artistic options with DOF. With FF35 Monstro we will see increases in bit-depth and DR.

If you want pristine 4K, then shooting 6K Bayer makes perfect sense.

And so to me, it's a total no-brainer. FF35 is the way of the future. :sifone:

[Roberto B]

welcome to the gang man.

[david farland]

I'm very interested to see how much better FF35 6K will look converted to 35mm film and HD.
As for the 35mm standard, I note it was agreed exactly 100 years ago....1909!
Red's provided a crack in the expensive 35mm camera framework that's lasted 100 years...will they provide a crack in the 35mm acquisition frame standard? Take cine to FF35.....in line with still photography.

- Resolution (& colour data) will keep on going up, atleast while JJ is around. Jim will take the gamble that the cine market will be going to FF35 anyway. He just wants to accelerate it and to do that I expect the 13+ monstro pixels will be one of the sweetners to go FF35. Otherwise, why would you not provide 13+ monstro pixels in a S35 format? And I love the idea of having a camera (FF35) that really competes with film but at the same time having these Red FF35 lenses makes me more competitive with the rest of the industry. Kinda like provides the writing on the wall for all those S35 lens owners.

It'll be like....you want digital at film-like latitude/colour.....come to me. You wanna use panavision/zeiss/other S35 lenses...umm well you can, and they're fine on a S35 sensor, but if you really want high quality digital....use Red FF35 lenses on a Red FF35 camera, otherwise you're wasting quality. Firstly by not using FF35 lenses and secondly by not using a 13+ (FF35) camera at all. Comes back to that sweetner thing. Jim may come under a lot of pressure to create a 13+ / S35 sensor from all the people who have investment in S35 lenses. Bit like the R1 5K sensor upgrade only it'll be a S35/13+ monstro upgrade. Data throughput will kill this not to say he couldn't plan for this in advance. But he's not only fighting this board, he's fighting the still lens/camera (FF35) manufacturers moving into the cine space. Either way, would you give up the opportunity to create a better product (cine FF35) and sell it in a completely untouched market.

As Tom points out the only thing will be lack of FF35 lenses. I agree with that, but would add physics.
Physics because I'm sure lens/camera manufacturers will be able to provide tools for more accurate focus pulling in less DOF...but like wringles in HD, hitting marks will be paramount. Unlike wringles , they'll be harder to cover up. More focus errors will appear (hopefully downrezzing will help a little) and poor focus on FF35 shoots will be a problem but I think it'll improve. Kinda 2 steps forwards, one step back.
So throughout all this S35/FF35 frame war will be...availability of new high quality FF35 lenses. What's not to like...will except redundant S35 lenses that is. So will R1 owners experience similiar pain non Red owners have/are. Well not if you stick with Jim's upgrade path, which I will...
The only thing is I'll have to cherry pick what Red milestones I buy into. Buying a set of lenses at Ultra prime quality has come down 75% in price so it'll be interesting to see how their life span also reduces.

D

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I'm going to agree with Tom here. FF35 is going to hold a lot of benefits, some probably unforseen. As optics improve along with tools to assist focus and exposure, the attractiveness of the format will increase. But the format I really see taking off for creative / narrative film production is actually 6x45 (as in EPIC 645). It's huge for motion picture work, nearly as big as 15/70 IMAX (OK, not quite that big, it's only 63% of an IMAX frame). But I see this camera offering some real appeal as the market evolves over the next few years. Currently 3D is all the rage (again) and this time around, the 3D experience is very enjoyable for many animated features, some action, horror, adventure stuff and some other applications. But I really don't see it applying to all genres. I really enjoyed the IMAX sequences in The Dark Knight and I think that's just a taste of what is to come for many other films looking to offer increased visual impact without traveling the 3D route.

FWIW, the EPIC 617 is going to be an amazing tool as well. It's slightly taller (about 3.4mm) than an IMAX frame and nearly 2.5 times as wide. With all that resolution and 3:1 aspect ratio, it's going to have applications ranging from large format advertising, FX work, panoramic cinema and photography etc.. Like Ian, I will shoot a film in 28K as well. I will be buying either the EPIC 617 or 645. I don't think I can swing both, but a lot will depend on availability timing and what I feel I can accomplish the most with.

[Joel Kaye]

And so to me, it's a total no-brainer. FF35 is the way of the future.

If focusing is tougher with Full Frame there's no way I'm switching. I've got 6 inches of DOF now in a lot of cases. I'm not going to willingly shrink that.


I can see it being the future - Maybe when ISO 6400 and F8 is easy to get indoors. It takes A LOT of light to get to F/5.6 as it is now. 645? Gimme a break. How much light would you need to track a medium shot of someone walking? Bigger frames will be awesome for daylight scenic shots though. Perhaps people will switch formats between outdoor daylight and interior tungsten.

Only Hollywood can really light a whole room evenly up to F8 and that would probably get pretty weird for the actors and crew.

RED needs more ISO and Latitude long before it needs 645.

[david farland]

Monstros could be rated at 800 asa...giving another 1.5 stops.
D

[Tom Lowe]

Yeah, I think we are all assuming (hopefully!) to see some major gains in ISO/ASA with Monstro.

And of course, with FF35, you always have the option of putting on S35 lenses. The opposite is not true with an S35 brain.

[tj williams]

MY PREDICTION:
1. Vista vision depth of field comes to the indy camera asst. To be followed by a raise in the suicide rate among these young relatively inexperienced softies.

2. Lighting to T8 becomes commonplace incidence of heat stroke on set increases "drama"tically.

3. RED having not worked on the dynamic range problem, while facination with increased resolution, film is still widely used in exterior work and other high contrast environments. Panavision with their multiple sensitivity sensors steals a march on RED.

4. Audiences watching 2K theatre projection and HD as low as 720 resolution are unaware of the sparkling clarity of the images as seen in the dailies!

[david farland]

There is about 2 stops 'difference' in depth of field between using a s35 camera and ff35 camera.

for example...these two setup will have same FOV & DOF,
S35/50mm/f5.6 / 4 feet = 6 in (depth of field)
FF35/80mm/f11 / 4 feet = 6 in (depth of field)

So if Red increased the sensitivity of their monstros by 2 stops, i.e, 320-> 1250 (they won't) all is forgiven.
Increasing the sensitivity of the FF35 monstro by only 1 stop reduces the above depth of field to 3 inches.

another example of same FOV only...
S35/50mm/f5.6 / 10 feet = 3.5 ft (depth of field)
FF35/80mm/f8 / 10 feet = 2.3 ft (depth of field)
645 /135mm/f8 / 10 feet = 1.1 ft (depth of field)

Not great i know. I expect there will be a similiar reduction in DOF moving from the R1 to the s35 Epic as moving from the s35 Epic to the FF35 Epic.
Obviously DOF for AC's will more of a problem. Maybe there'll just be some focus pulls most people won't be able to do anymore.

Also would love to hear one of those ''don't fear...Red are awake' on this one.

So do people think FF35 will become mainstream or not?

Dave

[Liam Hall]

Also, is this a beginning on the convergence of cine/still formats?

That's already started with the Canon 5D and Nikon D90.

The effect on the industry can already be seen in the number of newbies coming into the game. With lighter, cheaper cameras that are easy to use every Tom, Dick and Harry will think they're a moviemaker. Take a look on any of the main photography sites and you'll see people posting videos and exclaiming they are thinking of pursuing it as a career. In reality, some of the newbies will be great and some wont - just like those already in the industry.

I can see a place for FF35 in commercials and music video, but I see S35 remaining the dominant format in features and TV drama for some time to come.

Oddly, I think the documentary and corporate sectors will embrace FF35 the quickest - particularly for interviews where a shallow DOF can really help.

In general though my predictions for the FF35 age are lots of inappropriate usage of shallow depth of field and lots of comments like, "nice bokek" posted on internet sites.

It should be fun...

[Humberto Rivera]

The brains of the S35-X and S35 both have a 30mm X 15mm sensor size. The RPPs, the Master Primes, and the Optimo DP 16mm X 42mm and the Optimo DP 30mm X 80mm all cover at least a 31mm diameter with quality in the glass. So for all purposes they cover the R1 as well as the S35-X in exactly the same manner in a 16:9 frame size (and a 1.85 size).

Obviously on the S35 they cover a larger amount of the sensor, and thus a-heir resolution. When a 4K Inter Negative is made, it’s made to a-heir resolution that one from an R1.

So, the DOF which is rather important to provide the “look” of film that we become accustomed to be maintain. All that “high-quality-glass” that currently exist at lower T-stop can continue to be used. The extra T-stop, and of course the evolutionary version of the camera, it’s really a “no-brainer”.

Humberto Rivera

[Tom Lowe]

for example...these two setup will have same FOV & DOF,
S35/50mm/f5.6 / 4 feet = 6 in (depth of field)
FF35/80mm/f11 / 4 feet = 6 in (depth of field)

David, what sensor size are you using for S35? When you lay the numbers out like this, it's a little daunting. Then again, if you're shooting 6K RAW and finishing at 4K or 2K, for example, you will have plenty of resolution to kill off any noise that might arise from shooting at higher ISO/ASA ratings. With a RAW Bayer camera, the spatial resolution vs final master resolution is extremely important for noise reduction purposes.

So you are left with either A) stopping down and boosting sensitivity or B) hiring a Jedi focus puller who is strong with the Force.

http://i44.tinypic.com/25jz9c1.jpg

[David Mullen ASC]

If you just base focal length choice on horizontal view, not the diagonal (which is affected by the aspect ratio) you'd think the difference between S35 and FF35 would be 1.5X (24mm wide vs. 36mm wide), which generally works out to be 1.5-stop difference in practical DOF once you match FOV, distance, and stop but change the focal length. FF35 is not twice as big as S35, so it shouldn't be a 2-stop difference in DOF behavior.

[Tim Lüdin]

Who ever shot some quick and dirty video with his/her Canon 5D2 will be hooked be the idea to shoot an Epic FF in the near future. I am.
That little f..ing canon makes me happy when ever I shoot some video stuff with it. The DOF ist just to nice to be true.
I think Jim knows that or saw it in his lab that this will be the future.
Now think the new RED code, 13+ stops of DR and a FF sensor to put all the nice nikon, canon (1.2) or the new RED lenses on it.
This will be super killer. I can see it on my 5D2 allready.
Now think RED Team and you know whats coming.

Crazy times. But goooooood.:thumbsup:

[Tom Lowe]

Who ever shot some quick and dirty video with his/her Canon 5D2 will be hooked be the idea to shoot an Epic FF in the near future. I am.
That little f..ing canon makes me happy when ever I shoot some video stuff with it. The DOF ist just to nice to be true.
I think Jim knows that or saw it in his lab that this will be the future.
Now think the new RED code, 13+ stops of DR and a FF sensor to put all the nice nikon, canon (1.2) or the new RED lenses on it.
This will be super killer. I can see it on my 5D2 allready.
Now think RED Team and you know whats coming.

Crazy times. But goooooood.:thumbsup:

:thumbsup:

S35--> :violent5: <--FF35

[David Mullen ASC]

Hmmm, wait until you try to follow-focus during a fast dolly into an ECU of an actor at T/2.8 on your FF35 camera... :crying: That DOF that is "too nice to be true" suddenly becomes, well, not so nice. Super shallow focus is pretty in images, especially still ones, but it's not always practical in the day-to-day reality of following actors around in tight shots. I'm doing a D.I. right now for a S35 movie, and looking at some focus problems on the big screen makes me wonder if I should have lit everything to a T/4.0 at least...

[Tom Lowe]

David, this will not be a problem, as I have already begun grooming a new focus-puller who can "see things before they happen"...

http://i42.tinypic.com/10pbxut.jpg

[David Mullen ASC]

Well, wait until your Jedi focus-puller realizes what salary she could demand with that talent... :)

[Lee Saxon]

Hmmm, wait until you try to follow-focus during a fast dolly into an ECU of an actor at T/2.8 on your FF35 camera... :crying: That DOF that is "too nice to be true" suddenly becomes, well, not so nice. Super shallow focus is pretty in images, especially still ones, but it's not always practical in the day-to-day reality of following actors around in tight shots.

I don't really understand why this as an argument to get a smaller-sensor camera ie 2/3" Scarlet. Seems to me with FF35 or even S35 you have options - hassle-free shallow DoF wide-open (even with sub-$1500 f/2.8 still lenses if you're broke) plus deeper DoF just a few aperture clicks away! Meanwhile with a 2/3" or smaller sensor you're stuck with relatively deep DoF even if you spend ten bajifewajilfajiweftillion dollars on f/1.3 Master Primes.

Is it just the cost and heat associated with lighting for smaller apertures?

[Sergei Franklin]

The PL mount S35 format give's us a huge choice of lenses: fast T1.3 lenses from 14 to 150 mm for night work, shift and tilt, old lenses for special looks, modified still lenses like 8mm and 300mm F2.0, zoom lenses,...
FF35 has a lot less choices, and very few T1.3 lenses.
Rather than more pixels I would like to see more bits per pixel(14Bit) and better low light performance.

[gdv]

want to add one point from the history of the film Industry.
There were 100's of formats in films, 29mm 17.5mm three projectors 180 degrees projectors and even 360 degrees projectors, 4 perf, 8 perf, I have the whole list some where.
The only format that survived till now all they way was 35mm which was the original and even its "Silent" frame is still being used nowadays in commercials.
This is because sometimes the simplest solution and means are the best and the correct ones.
It is all about story telling, like a book which so simple with cover and pages inside. A book is the package of the story and the ideas that somene had created.
Be prepare to be surprised.

[Patrick Tresch]

Hello,

I've also shot a short with the 5D un pulled focus myself... on mostly the 50mm 1,4 canon lens.

I can't imagine how a cam assist will be able to pull focus on this kind of apperture and focal length (perhaps Jedi focus-puller ? :-)).

I had to literally pull focus by sligtly moving the camera back and forward adjusting the focus to the actor move... :-) (this in conjunction with usual focusing, when moving the camera was not possible, good it was all handheld).

If FF35 will exist, RED has to enable us to shoot with higher ISO without noise to be able to stop down at least 1 or 2 stops on the lens. (compared to competition)

Otherwise the system will be another dead born format.

Shooting @ 1,4 or even 2 with FF35 is first an assist nightmare, then a dop nightmare and at the end the director will commit suicide in the DI room!!!

:-)

Shallow depth of field is very flattering but you have to be clear:

- either you accept the shooting constrain of a proper focus set by the camera assistant
- or you accept some soft (really soft) pictures. (the audience is final juge...)

Patrick

[Tom Lowe]

The PL mount S35 format give's us a huge choice of lenses: fast T1.3 lenses from 14 to 150 mm for night work, shift and tilt, old lenses for special looks, modified still lenses like 8mm and 300mm F2.0, zoom lenses,...

FF35 has a lot less choices, and very few T1.3 lenses.
Rather than more pixels I would like to see more bits per pixel(14Bit) and better low light performance.

Just put your PL mount and S35 lenses on the Monstro FF35. It WILL have greater bit-depth and superior low-light performance.

[David Rasberry]

S35 seems to be the sweet spot for reasonable DOF control. But one can always crop to 5k,or 4k and use wider PL lenses on the FF35 to get the needed DOF.
From the photo spreads I'm seeing published in the stills magazines these days, the fad seems to be moving to the other extreme, ultra deep DOF. Some shooters are even doing HDR like composites of multiple frames shot at different focus points to maintain sharp focus from the front of the lens all the way to the horizon.

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't really understand why this as an argument to get a smaller-sensor camera ie 2/3" Scarlet. Seems to me with FF35 or even S35 you have options - hassle-free shallow DoF wide-open (even with sub-$1500 f/2.8 still lenses if you're broke) plus deeper DoF just a few aperture clicks away! Meanwhile with a 2/3" or smaller sensor you're stuck with relatively deep DoF even if you spend ten bajifewajilfajiweftillion dollars on f/1.3 Master Primes.

Is it just the cost and heat associated with lighting for smaller apertures?

Do you have a lot of experience lighting sets for a natural look at high apertures?

Sure, it's possible -- I try to light anamorphic for an f/4, and when I have to do slow-motion shots, I have to get the level up for that. I once had to light a tiny bedroom to f/22 for some 1000 fps Phantom shots.

Doesn't mean it's easy, or allows you to get the same degree of naturalism when mixing with available light.

Besides, the "just" in "is it just the cost" implies that lighting cost is some minor thing we all have to deal with. One f-stop more of light is twice as much light.

Besides, I never said that anyone should shoot 2/3" instead of FF35 -- there is an in-between size afterall. It's not like your only two choices are 2/3" and FF35. Also, "hassle-free shallow DOF" is somewhat of an oxymoron because shallow DOF can be a hassle to work with when it is easy to achieve.

[Michael Hastings]

It's not like your only two choices are 2/3" and FF35. Also, "hassle-free shallow DOF" is somewhat of an oxymoron because shallow DOF can be a hassle to work with when it is easy to achieve.

I suspect you mean S35, but what about an in between step from S35 and 2/3" (given that we can achieve 4k or better resolution on the sensors at this size) like four/thirds. As a rough guesstimate it seems like for the same physical size/weight you can get about a stop faster on lenses for S35 than you can for FF35 and the same is true for four/thirds - you can get about a stop faster for lenses (this is most evident when you look at the zooms F2 compared to normally the best are F2.8 for the APS-C and FF35 SLRs.)

So you would have significantly shallower depth of field than 2/3"/16mm but not quite as much as S35. We have been considering this also for the implications relating to side by side stereo 3D but I wonder what you would think of the practical implications for your normal narrative work flow.

In other words would you like to have an extra "stop" of light AND depth of field or would it compromise the creative aspects?

[david farland]

David, what sensor size are you using for S35?

S35 is based on a diagonal of 31.25mm /CoC = .025mm
Dave

[David Mullen ASC]

Unless you crop both sensors being compared to the same aspect ratio, it's better to just compare horizontal view. Because the FF35 sensor is basically a 1.50 : 1 shape and the S35 sensor is a 1.78 : 1 shape, and you generally don't pick a focal length for it's diagonal view of the scene.

[david farland]

David,
I hate sums. I’ve based my examples on CoC of 0.2mm (5 lines pair/mm at 250mm).
If I use the horizontals, the CoC then become…..

FF35
250mm /36mm = 6.94
0.2mm /6.94 = .029 (CoC)

S35
250mm /24mm = 10.42
0.2mm /10.42= .019 (CoC)

So my equations are……

S35/50mm/f5.6 / 4 feet = 5 in (depth of field)
FF35/80mm/f9.5 / 4 feet = 5 in (depth of field)

Dave,

[David Mullen ASC]

David,
I hate sums. I’ve based my examples on CoC of 0.2mm (5 lines pair/mm at 250mm).
If I use the horizontals, the CoC then become…..

FF35
250mm /36mm = 6.94
0.2mm /6.94 = .029 (CoC)

S35
250mm /24mm = 10.42
0.2mm /10.42= .019 (CoC)

So my equations are……

S35/50mm/f5.6 / 4 feet = 5 in (depth of field)
FF35/80mm/f9.5 / 4 feet = 5 in (depth of field)

Dave,

That conforms more to what I figure, which is a 1.5-stop difference.

[david farland]

David,
Are you using the horizontals to compare because you're rarely shooting the same aspect ratios with S35 and FF35?

D

[Tim Lüdin]

Hmmm, wait until you try to follow-focus during a fast dolly into an ECU of an actor at T/2.8 on your FF35 camera... That DOF that is "too nice to be true" suddenly becomes, well, not so nice. Super shallow focus is pretty in images, especially still ones, but it's not always practical in the day-to-day reality of following actors around in tight shots. I'm doing a D.I. right now for a S35 movie, and looking at some focus problems on the big screen makes me wonder if I should have lit everything to a T/4.0 at least...

David, you are absolutely right about the focus problems.
You will need the jedi focus puller for sure.
Pulling focus below f 2.0 with an S-35 cam is hard already.
So the new FF sensor should be as sensitive as the Nikons or Canon sensors, so you could stop down if needed.
Those new sensors would give you a lot of flexebility back, that the RED sensor is lacking at the moment.

Tim

[Tom Lowe]

I think it will be difficult for Red to quickly match the low-light performance of Canon and Nikon. Those companies have spent years if not decades on research and development to reach where the 5D2 and D3x are at right now. Even Sony's attempt to build a FF35 camera was a complete failure in terms of ISO! Then again, Jim has been able to pull a lot of rabbits out of a lot of hats, so you never know. I'm sure it will be a huge improvement over R1.

[David Mullen ASC]

David,
Are you using the horizontals to compare because you're rarely shooting the same aspect ratios with S35 and FF35?

D

Comparing diagonals is fine if the sensors have the same aspect ratio, or you crop them to the same ratio, but many don't.

Most of the time, you are picking a lens for its horizontal view, though not always. It just simplifies things if you pick one element to compare, and the trouble with diagonals as that often you have to take out your calculator and figure them out based on the horizontal and vertical dimensions provided. This becomes the only time I have to spend using the Pythagorean Theorem since high school...

[Stefan Christou]

I think one advantage that FF35 may have over the S35 versions is that it will be easier for those who will have to do a 16:9, 14:9 or even 4:3 release of whatever 2.4:1 film they are making.

As David has said in his "ask him anything" thread it is much easier to frame for 2.4:1 in a taller format (cropping from almost the top of the frame so you don't leave too much headroom in the taller frame version, and can get a boom closer) and then crop down to 2.4:1 so you don't have to pan and scan in the 16:9/14:9/4:3 version, which would lose a lot of your image.

Since 1.5 stops is the real difference in this case, and we can reasonably expect 1 stop more DR in the new sensors (at the same photosite size) there is not toooo much of a problem is there? Especially compared to the non-pan and scan advantage? Or am I chatting rubbish? (I don't really have experience of this so this is a thought experiment for me)

[david farland]

Thanks Dave...must be a nightmare trying to work out magnification factor/overlays with different aspects. I guess we're gonna have fun when mix/matching on the FF35. Going from S35/1.78 to F35/1.5 you'll be bumping up against the horizontals. It's just that magnification factor that worries me. So you think it's more like 1.5 stops.....good news.....very good news.
D

[Tom Lowe]

Again, don't forget that even if the Epic FF35 is not ASA 1000 or whatever, by shooting a 6K RAW image, you have room for some serious noise reduction in post, which will allow you to boost ASA/ISO ratings while shooting. If you are finishing at 2K, the amount of noise reduction can be massive. But even posting at 4K, you can process the RAW files for noise reduction.

[David Mullen ASC]

As much as we whine about this shallower-focus issue of FF35, truth is that most DP's when asked if they'd like to shoot a feature in VistaVision or 65mm would jump at the chance, focus problems be damned -- IF there is a dramatic improvement in picture quality over S35. (Shooting for TV, well, there is less incentive to shoot 6K or FF35 if it creates more work that isn't going to be seen on TV.)

And yes, if the FF35 camera is practically a stop faster, then it's less of a deal, though the truth is that people often tend to light to the lowest level they can get away with. I was surprised to read that "Terminator Salvation" was lit and shot entirely at a T/2.0 -- for an action movie, that's rare, partly because you end up with so many cameras on stunts with T/2.8 zooms on them, plus action is hard to focus on.

I think the bigger impediment to using the whole FF35 sensor is going to be lack of cine optics, not the challenges of using a larger sensor, focus-wise. DP's are going to be less inclined to push to shoot an entire movie on a FF35 sensor if they have to use still camera lenses.

As far as the 1.50 : 1 aspect ratio of the FF35 sensor being an advantage for delivering multiple aspect ratios, compared to the 1.78 : 1 (16x9) S35 sensor, that's less of an issue unless you need a 4x3 image or want to shoot with 2X anamorphic lenses. Generally 16x9 is "square enough" to pull most other aspect ratios from without too much work. Plus it's hard to compose for multiple ratios or keep a big square sensor clear of junk if you are composing for 2.40, so at some point, it doesn't help to have a squarer sensor (except for anamorphic lenses.)

[Stefan Christou]

It's nice to have an ASC at hand to educate us :thumbsup:

[david farland]

Thanks Dave...makes lots of sense.
Just realised I made a mistake, if you have a crop factor of 1.5 that means you should use a 75mm (not 80mm) on the FF35 which means you only need 1 stop....which we'll probably get out of the Epic FF35....

S35/50mm/f5.6 / 4 feet = 5 in (depth of field)
FF35/75mm/f8.2 / 4 feet = 5 in (depth of field)

Dave

[david farland]

When comparing the effect S35/FF35 lenses (1.6:1) have on scene magnification, the lenses don't care about the sensor....but the sensor provides a all important frame of reference, so I gotcha on why you're using frame sizes (1.5:1) with different lenses to work out depth of field.

So 1 stop of difference with the Monstros shouldn't be a great problem.
As stated here, the problem will be availability of FF35 lenses or lenses which can cover optical circle.
The SALT test results should be valuable in providing measurements.
I only know of the Zeiss rehoused ZF lenses that would provide a 43mm circle through the full range of lenses.

With FF35 lenses do DOP's tend to shoot closer to the scene/talent?

I guess when Red begin selling their FF35 camera, they'll begin advertising their FF35 lenses.
So far only their FF35 electronic zooms have been announced.
These seem designed as still lenses but I'm guessing they have more FF35 cine lens in the pipeline.

D