This is a classic example of where UA-cam can be truly taken to new heights, the level of expertise & production values in this video is awesome. UA-cam needs more expert creators like you, subscribed and congrats.
There is a lot of expert people doing amazing stuff, you just need to find them, cause UA-cam only displays what is trending which is in majority just a pile of shit sadly.
@@Alex-cw3rz you are right. If you will display only one of this 9 6k frames on a full screen, you will see only small part of the scene - around 11%, so the zoom will be relatively smaller from this single frame then what it was from 9 frames combined. Take a look at what central 6k frame cover, from that you would be able to achieve same zoomed part quality. So basically first big part of the zoom is from 16k back to 6k.
We say no to pay to win bear in mind that 16k just like 6k is just the format size.. so he just stiched 9 angles together to make a 16k format video to make this presentation nothing else.. the zooming in with just one video of 6k would still be as sharp in the end result. Correct me if I’m wrong tho, lol
I'm a professional cinematographer with 16 years under my belt with over 30+ features and 100's of shorts, tv commercials, and music videos... I can shed some light onto this subject about LF + vs s35mm, 16mm, ect... The thing that changes is not "perspective" so to speak, but how the lens distortion / angle of view vs it's characteristics changes. A 50mm on s35mm has naturally a decent amount of shallow depth of field due to it's design. When you jump to a larger image sensor with the SAME 50mm (so long as the lenses image circle can cover the size of the larger sensor) you get a different field of view with a depth of field characteristic of a 50mm vs say if you matched the equivalent lens as a 25mm on an s35mm sensor. It is inherent that the wider your lens is MM wise, the less shallow the depth of field is naturally at a given distance. What LF and larger sensors offer is a different visual feel per lens. Your 50mm slightly telephoto lens you normally use on s35mm now becomes a wide angle lens on the LF but without the limitations of wide angle depth of field. You can have less depth of field with a wider field of view now. This is the main and only difference you are getting other than resolution. This is why cinematographers are picking LF and IMAX, because they allow a characteristic with lenses that can only be achieved with the optical to sensor size ratio of those systems. It's a similar reason / way that anamorphic lenses feel different. 2x anamorphic lenses have the same height as the lens suggests (50mm image height on s35 = 50mm de-squeezed image height from anamorphic 4:3 image) However the WIDTH doubles, so you get a frame that is inheriting the "best" of both lens sizes, the depth of field of a 50mm, but the wide frame of a 25mm. A "wide angle" anamorphic lens is usually about 40mm before lens distortion becomes noticeable. So as you can see this is a similar way to handling anamorpic. The difference is all in the lens choices, and this allows you to move the camera in closer, with less distorted faces on wider angles, while keeping the feel of a more telephoto lens. It's a more natural way to look at something "up close". Hope this helps clear up "WHY" DP's choose larger formats for reasons beyond just resolution needs.
Hello Joe… thank you for your long and elaborate comment. I really appreciate your input and took the time to really go into it. Please take that as a form of appreciation and not for being argumentative. I work with seasoned directors, DoPs, and 1ACs a bit and it happens quite a lot that I run into misconceptions… simply because they are not part of practical work that is done, and few really test these things. Professionals are often less nerdy or substantially interested in these matters as one might think. I was surprised to hear even Roger Deakins make several statements in an Arri video, that are simply incorrect. I am not saying that you are guilty of that, but I learned to take everything with a grain of salt and to not accept an “argument of authority”. Hence, any argument has to stand by its own merit, no matter the experience of the person making the argument. Please don’t take that as an attack of any kind but as an opportunity to challenge some of ones viewpoints. I don’t want to be wrong any longer than I have to be, and I hope that my discussion partner has that same attitude and we can evaluate things in that spirit - so, let’s go. We totally agree that perspective is generated by distance of camera to subject only. Focal length and sensor size have no baring on it. DoF is a physical property that is generated by focal length, sensor size and aperture (a lenses design has no influence on that other than by altering the named ingredients, I don’t think you meant that but I just want to avoid missunderstandings) Now let’s go to you example and let’s say, we focus on an object 5 meters away A 50mm at f/2.8 on super35 has a DoF of 1.18m The same 50mm at f/2.8 on super65 has a DoF of 2.33m The FoV is vastly different 26mm at f/1.5 on super35 and a 50mm at f/2.8 on super65 have identical FoV and DoF This is the equivalency of lenses. Now, as we didn’t change the distance in any of the samples, the super35 and the super65 will generate the exact same image… eventual differences are due to different lens designs or film properties. Do we agree so far? Perspective distortions are generated by the distance and the field of view, so not in particular by a focal length. This is why a 8mm on super16 doesn’t have more or less distortions potential than a 18mm on super35 or 35mm on super65. Barrel distortions are not format specific, but related to lens designs and in particular flange distance. In this example the 35mm on super65 will have the most barrel distortion potential because of the massive flange of the system. We have a lot of long flange medium formt glass and the barrel distortion is very strong at moderate wide angles. Do we still agree? You start to talk about “feel” … that is not more tangible than the famous ”full frame look” that doesn’t exist. The change in DoF is easily countered by aperture so the remaining benefit is a gain resolution. But of course, that is only true with analog film. Digital sensors are resolution agnostic. A super35 RED Helium has a higher resolution than the ALEXA 65, so, it that special case, we would see a drop in resolution. By that logic, there is no characteristic with lenses that can only be achieved with larger formats.. Your statement that you can get closer to faces and have less distortions (perspective and or barrel) is incorrect. You will not get the telephoto compression (feel!?!). The perspective (compression is a property of perspective) is only generated by distance to subject (as was our first point). The video this comments are on proves that to you by comparing shots of the same subject at the distance inMFT to super35 to Full Frame to 4x5…. And as you can see, there is no difference in perspective or compression. There is a difference in DoF, but that is simply because we didn’t design this experiment to match those. The magnification of the background of the 4x5 must be some kind of fuck up in our setup… it defies theory. Anamorphics are a whole new can of worms that I am quite familiar with… I own and use Atlas Orion, several projector lenses, and adapters with different stretch factors. Let us put that aside for now not to make things more complicated. We will release an episode regarding Anamorphic later this year. Thank you again for your Input Joe… it is much appreciated and I hope you don’t feel like this is an attack against your profession or expertise in the subject. It is just so rare that you meet someone who actually shoots large format right next to regular formats. If you see those results you realise, that you really can’t tell the difference if you intercut the footage. This is even more true size the digital sensors relativised the resolution factor.
@@MediaDivision I think you misunderstood the "feel" and lens comparison issue. I will shoot a test to explain what I'm talking about to show you a real world example of wide vs telephoto distortion on LF vs s35mm. I own an Alexa XT and my friend has an LF so I can do a real world comparison with the same set of lenses / distance ect.
@@MediaDivision Also the equivalency of lenses that you speak of is exactly my point. You're talking about a T2.8 vs a T1.5, yet if you're already using the max T stop on a lens, lets say T2, then you cannot get the equivalent DOF for the FOV, hence there is your difference. Which is why I was saying its more about the lenses than anything else. If you want to match DOF but are already wide open on the lens, you cannot open wider to compensate. Also optical design of a lens has an inherent DOF limit, as discussed and this is where most want the difference. It's making your 50mm now a 30mm (rounding) so now you're also taking your tool and changing it's characteristics. Most wide angle lenses have less DOF by the lenses physical restriction optically. If you're wanting a fast, wide open aperture wide angle lens, up close, the larger formats do this for you. Now you don't have a Tstop restriction / compensation to deal with.
Please... do your test, that might be interesting just for yourself. You wouldn't even need another cam... you could just compare your super35 to a 16mm crop from that We do agree that DoF is changing....but that also means that you can easily compensate with the aperture. So, no LF magic there... especially no compression. Yes, lenses have design limits, but you will be hard pressed to find lenses so fast for super65, that you couldn't find fast enough FF lenses to compensate. Anyhow, though you might be able to think up a specific situation where a large format has a massive advantage, that has nothing to do with an intrinsic look that would make LF desirable. Btw. If I was DoP for a project that demanded extremely shallow DoF, super65 or IMAX would not be my choice at all... the availability of extremely fast lens on FF would out-perform all lens options for the larger format by far. If you are interested... our next episode will be "F0.7 filming at ultra speed"... and we are going to do just that.
@@MediaDivision Just to revive the topic, I think both of you are correct to some extent. Lens development within recent history has focused mostly on the 35mm format to the point where that's where you'd find the best lenses if what you're looking for is shallowest depth of field. However, lens format equivalency only goes so far as there are real world limitations to how good you can make a large aperture wide angle or something like that look optically good without heavy correction for vignetting, abberations, etc. all over the place. There are very real tests out there of how the wide angle Fuji GFX 23mm f4 (designed for a sensor with a 0.7 crop factor relative to full frame) lacks field curvature, vignetting, cats eyeing, abberations and resolves better out to its edge versus any 18mm full frame lens in existance (noting that 23 is equivalent to 16mm). Just trying to give some support to both sides of the argument.
UA-camr that actually think, re-think, deconstructing and doubting with a fresh perspective while actually experimenting on things that most of us just taking for granted. You sir, have my respect.
This is easily one of the most outstanding production qualities I have seen on UA-cam so far. The zooming in part with the music reminds me of a documentary film that explains travel through space as you are slowly passing by planets. Vibes.
Thanks a lot Nagart.... spread the word :-) it is actually a very very little reminisces of an old old docu: "Powers of Ten".... ua-cam.com/video/0fKBhvDjuy0/v-deo.html
Its the cool thing about the internet, you get see the experts on any subject. Love watching people who really know what they are talking about and who can get it across to the pro and layman at the same time. Great video
I only recently discovered this channel, and it blows my mind that absolutely amazing content like this can get lost in the sheer volume of stuff being uploaded to platforms like UA-cam nowadays. You definitely deserve more recognition!
VIPΞR 1 I am surprised that there are even one thousand people on the whole planet who would care about the subject so much to subscribe to this channel...
Why would you want this much resolution? I get 8K, it gets you a lot of room for stabilization and a bit of cropping for 4K output. But there is No application where you need to output that much on a screen. If I had to zoom that far in in editing, I might fire my dp 😂
There are many applications starting at IMAX... and there will be others like viewing distance agnostic screens. Large format screens that reveal detail on approach
Media Division You know IMAX isn’t even 4K? Apple Glass uses 8K screens since they are that close to your eyes and are supposed to fulfill retina standards. Anything else doesn’t profit from higher resolution. Billboards have a ridiculously low resolution since they are meant to be seen in the distance. TV and Monitors are supposed to fit in your room, and field of vision. So no higher resolution required there. 12K screens and beyond will never be worth the cost for the average or even enthusiast user, so it might never become more than a novelty. If incremental improvements where worth the cost, we would all have used Betamax instead of VHS and UHD 3D would be a thing.
@@annonymat Correct, IMAX isn't 4K. It's projected from film, which is often printed at far higher resolutions. Digital IMAX is projected using 2x2k projectors, but we don't talk about that. And if you really can't tell between 2K and 4K on an IMAX-sized screen, you should schedule your optometrist appointment ASAP.
Your projector demonstration is wonderful. We have a pair of Philips DP70s and show both 35 and 70mm, and you would be surprised by how intense the active cooling of the film gate is. It pulls city water, runs it through channels in the film gate, and then sends it straight to the sewer. The amount of removed heat is enough that you can feel a temperature difference in the intake and exhaust pipes.
Watching this on a 3120 x 1440 resolution smartphone which in about 2 feet away means I can't tell the difference between that resolution and 1560 x 720. But I can see the difference inches away from my face.
His conclusion is exactly what I expected. It is the lens that makes the image, not the sensor. I have a degree in physics, I use the focal formulas which predict no difference. And when I use the term aperture I mean the aperture, not the f/number which is in fact the focal ratio. We use focal ratio (f/number) and focal length because of the film legacy which means that the gain coefficient (ISO number) we use is affected by the sensor size and depth of field is a complicated combination of all three. If we moved to using field of view in degrees and aperture (i.e. the effective diameter of the lens), then the gain coefficient does not change with the sensor size, nor does field of view. Lenses with a 40 degree field of view and a 35 mm aperture will have the exact same gain coefficient and DoF regardless of sensor size. That lens would need be a 50mm f/1.4 on an FX camera, a 75mm f/2 on a DX and so on. There is in fact a small advantage to a larger sensor which is that there are physical limits that make making good lenses faster than f/1 very challenging. But in this case, the lens was an f/5.6 which means we are nowhere close to that limit. And it is no different with medium format. There is no medium format lens that I know of that has a larger aperture than the Nikon or Canon lens with the same field of view. I have been through the Hasselblad and Phase One catalogs and could not find a single one. There is also a diffraction issue that means that Nikon and Canon will find it difficult to move beyond 400MP without the use of digital post processing like we have on phone cameras. So yes, 35mm turns out to be the sweet spot for digital photography. Bigger sensors won't help unless you are making ultra-specialist optics and even there the sensor technologies Sony, Nikon and Canon use are far ahead of that used in any of the medium format cameras. Bigger sensor was better for film because the sensor response was dependent on sensor area. That is not true for digital.
Thank you for the interesting read Phillip. How would you explain the changing magnification in the background that we see comparing beyond IMAX and the "Normal" sizes?
Excellent point. That would be assuming the sensor size is 36x36, right? I think part of the problem is that many so-called “full frame” sensors are far too wide and nowhere near a 1:1 ratio and the impact of that can be even worse when using anamorphic lenses. While I’m sure the benefits are rather subtle, there could be some vertical potential there.
Larger sensors enable you to use longer focal lengths. Creating totally different look (check out LargeSense LS911). Also, you need larger sensors to have larger pixels, so you have less noise. You cant add pixels on a fixed size sensor indefinitely. As you do need more megapixels to make quality prints. People still printing at 300ppi, meaning its upscaled mush. Simply because even 100 megapixels is not enough for a proper print. But this is for photography, video is different. Digital has a big problem, of being fixed resolution. Like watching 1080p content on a 4k monitor, looks horrible. All the stuff that has been filmed on early digital, will age really badly. If you want to print big at 600 or 720ppi, you need a fuckton of megapixels. And the difference between 300 and 600ppi is really clear. Most, even gallery prints, made on digital still look quite bad because they simply cant offer enough megapixels to print in the sizes people are printing. So they are always resorting to upscaling, and then use shaperning to try to cover the mush they just produced. I still use film simply because i can get file sizes of 0.5-1 gigapixels, and that is what i need for large quality prints. So i can match the files size to the printer resolution. The stuff shot 100 years ago, can be scanner perfectly to 1gigapixel. But stuff shot 5 years ago on the top of the line digital are stuck at the horrible low resolution. There is a difference in having a degree in physics and actually understanding photography in practise and having some sort of vision about it and what you want to do with it.
14:55 I saw a Dunkirk showing projected 15/70mm and there was a huge difference in the quality from 65mm to 15/70mm when viewing this projected on a huge screen. Not only was the 15/70mm scenes much bigger(obviously) but they were MUCH cleaner.
I haven't seen Dunkirk in cinema, but it seems odd that a high end scan and zoom in shouldn't reveal that. Some IMAX "experts" told me that IMAX is not generally cleaner than smaller formats, and why would they be? Medium Format photo images are not generally cleaner than 35mm ones. Large format photos are/where used for still life a lot and the amazing quality is achieved with long exposures… can't do that in film ;-)
Media Division Dunkirk was indeed incredibly sharper, “cleaner” and with relevatorily better color in the 15 perf sequences. If you’ve seen any true IMAX screening with mixed formats, you could see this. Dunkirk, Dark Knight, Ghost Protocol, etc. And medium format film is incredibly cleaner looking that 35mm. Medium and Large formats can be blown up so much larger. And high end scans available simply cannot resolve these larger formats. The technology has not caught up. And remember, Bayer is a totally different medium than the layered dye clouds on emulsion. Bayer is so degrading to an image. IMO a proper analogue process will usually look way nicer than a dingy di! Time your 35mm in the lab and I guarantee you the struck print will look way better than a scanned and digitally corrected and projected print.
@@jon4715 Yep. I've seen Dark Knight, Dark Knight rises and Dunkirk in IMAX 15 perf and the differences between the different formats are not even close when viewing on an IMAX screen. IMAX is so clean that it almost resembles something digital yet it's retains all of the benefits of film not to mention there is a certain look to it. One example is being able working closer to subjects with less distortion because of the crop. IMAX has a .49 crop factor.....so they actually used a 50mm lens for wide angle shots) . Medium format film annihilates 35mm film in general. “Out of the 100 or so Imax prints that were made, a limited number were show prints struck from original Imax camera negative,” says David Hall. Those prints are showing in Imax venues in select cities, including Los Angeles, New York and London. “Chris very much likes to see an original camera negative printed to film,” he notes. “There’s nothing quite like it. Digital technology has certainly come a long way, but a print from a DI never looks quite the same.” “Anybody who sees an original-negative print of a film shot in Imax is looking at the best image quality available to filmmakers today,” Nolan observes. “As long as any new technology is required to measure up to that, I think film has to remain the future.” theasc.com/ac_magazine/August2012/DarkKnightRises/page3.html
Maybe some day in the future we can get to a point where they can utilize those 67 x 54 MF digital sensors in a high end video format at around 10K resolution using the large photosites that ARRI is using we can start to approach IMAX in some capacities. As much as I love IMAX film it's just not a sustainable thing for the masses and I am hoping we can at least get digital closer to this.
Agreed, it isn't even a question when you view on a real IMAX screen and projector (not faux max). Every bit of the resolution is being used. On our 60x80' Imax screen, if it is shot with large format, you go there. During the time they had the movies that would switch between Imax (film) and their other format (35mm?) it was amazing, not just because it opened up the frame but the clarity was so much better that made the rest of the movie look soft/fuzzy. Of course, there is the reality that capture is only a small part of the process and every step along the way of re-encoding, color grading etc can reduce the difference. And for the current movies where they mix format, they want them to look similar they make make changes that reduce any big differences. So net benefit can certainly be reduced and probably questionable for most shoots.
@@MediaDivision it's a pleasure . In a world of clever marketing, the brands are misguiding beginners introducing their " large format " [ 35mm full frame cine cameras ] . But nobody actually explains and tell the problems of celluloid cinematography and why so many formats existed . I was thinking about the MFT Format Blackmagic design PCC 4K and upcoming Sony a7S III Nd was doing research on the sensor sizes over last few weeks and most of my " Google-ed knowledge " is already being coined in your video . Now I can refer them to my friends too .
@@RobertChelios Thats what this channel is all about… Thank you Robert. But like I said, I am not perfect and I am willing to evolve my point of view given evidence… It is a journey! Right now, I would say that size does not matter………… much. If you go into anamorphic an such, the sensor size will matter (… you have to crop the pocket a lot to get a 4:3 image and then you get into low resolution problems)
Gonna have to strongly disagree on the large format conclusion. Compare 70mm Imax or 65mm footage to Super 35 or even Anamorphic 35mm and there is a huge difference in quality. Maybe not on a phone screen, but definitely on screens larger than a computer monitor. The grain and stability aren't even close. Also, looking to old scans of LoA and 2001 for 70mm examples and comparing it to modern Super 35 is not reasonable. Film stocks have come a long way since the 60s- a better comparison would be to compare LoA/2001 to Dr. No, or Dunkirk to Phantom Thread. These differences in quality are only amplified the larger the screen and the closer the audience sits. This is why IMAX and Large Format Presentations were invented. The negative carries a surplus of information compared to smaller film formats, allowing the screen to be bigger and the audience to sit closer. This means the screen takes up more of the audience's FOV, giving better immersion, while still having a higher percieved resolution. Nolan/Tarantino/Scorsese don't shoot in IMAX and 70mm for the people watching on iPhones or laptops, they shoot in it for the people watching in premium theaters.
There is nothing quite like watching IMAX 70mm footage projected on a 80 foot IMAX 70mm film projection. It is mind blowing period. I've never seen such deep blacks, contrast, insane brightness, crazy resolution like I did watching Hateful 8 on 70 mm projection in Cinerama. Truly breathtaking!
You are aware that IMAX uses the same kind of negative substrate that normal s35 film uses? So, why would there be more contrast? If you where to watch a s35 film on a small screen, the effective resolution (dots per inch) would be higher. IMAX is immersive because it covers more FoV. The resolution on any given area is not per se higher to a small screen, neither is there more contrast. You watched Hateful 8 IN Cinerama? Maybe in a Cinerama cinema, but to my knowledge it was never shown in a three projector Cinerama setup. It is ultra Panavision 70mm.
I'm not convinced that perspective is affected by sensor because it goes against every basic law of optics. What I suspect is there is a movement in the distance in the LENS. If your camera was stationary and you moved the LENS further back for the 35mm equivalent that would account for perspective shifting
I am not convinced of anything, just searching for explanations for an obvious different result to expectation. Maybe the mistake is indeed the position, we replicated the sensors position, not the lenses position. Lens position is hard to determine. Is it the front middle or back of a lens that defines the position? all in all we would talk about a difference of only a couple of centimeters this way or the other… there is a lot of magnification effect just given this little change in distance. Given the massive difference of the sensor sizes the effect would be neglect-able anyways.
@@MediaDivision I think you just explained it. The perspective would not have shifted if you kept the LENS in the same place and moved the sensor. As for where you need to measure from, I believe it is the rear nodal point of the lens: thats where thr rays cross and make the upside down image. This point is used by photostitchers shooting because you can pan and tilt along that point and get no parrallax. I'm not sure what your distances were but even the movement of a few cm could account for what differences you saw. As for how big sensor shifting perspective... keep in mind your sensor is small compared to what artists used to draw on with their camera obscura.. they traced full on walls. And really a projector is just a camera in reverse... same exact principles and we dont see a shift in perspective from a 25ft screen to a 100ft screen.
@@FilmmakerIQ it might just be that, but we are taking about an object 10 meters away and a MFT camera with 35mm lens moved by 5cm towards that...... would that cause magnification of this extend... every bit of experience in me screams "hell no." Maybe it is something completely different.
@@MediaDivision Well every bit of experience in me screams "hell no" when you say perspective is affected by sensor size. I've done extensive experiments regarding forced perspective and precisely controlling the size of objects in the scene - search math and science of forced perspective on my channel. I even built a calculator that can determine precisely the angle of view of an object for a given distance. There's something screwy with your focal length numbers on the lenses you used between the Beyond IMAX and the regular 35mm the focal length you used on the 35mm doesn't match what you should have used going with crop factor math (you should have had to use 82mm, not 70mm for your FF to match the beyond IMAX) - but let's ignore that for now (but it screws up how to think about this). Now looking at your bellows - that's got to be at least 20 cm long - not 5 cm. So when you took the bellows off, and attached a normal zoom lens to the Kinefinity, you essentially stepped back 20 cm. Next I really think you're off with 10m to that white shelf - looks to me to be around 3-4m. Using my calculator a movement of 20cm closer to an object 4m would result in a 5% change in size. It's really hard to measure using screen grabs but that's in the neighborhood of what I'm seeing. But there's still a little more than 5% change - and that's where I wonder what's going on with your 70mm lens choice. You did something weird - you changed some variable without knowing it... If you want to pursue your hypothesis as a possibility in the break of optical physics - you're going to need to be much more rigorous and precise in your measurements (which is super hard because the accuracy you need is very difficult to accomplish at these distances). But I suggest you try it and make a video on it - there's an audience on UA-cam that loves that stuff. But otherwise, no, all of optical physics says only distance plays in perspective. Sensor size has no bearing whatsoever. Nothing you have shown here really proves otherwise.
While the light heat of projectors are a factor that drove release prints to be massive for massive screens, we shouldn't forget that the size of the grains are constant. At least when films of different sizes use the same emulsion. So if you have a frame size that is 10x 35mm, like IMAX. You can have 10x the screen size and the amount of grain per projected square decimeter would be the same. Also, about blowing up 35 to imax... Well, firstly, the cost of IMAX is expensive, and since 95% of the cinemas are simply too small to take advantage of whatever you'd gain in detail-preservation, it's just not worth it. However, there was w period between the 70s and the mid 90s where blockbusters would get blowups to 5 perf 70mm. At first, it was to get surround sound (magnetic six-track vs optical two-track) but it also did get a better image since the buildup of defects are less noticeable the higher you go in film size. That trend died out somewhat as digital surround was standardized for 35mm. Also, I do remember reading about tests where imax technicians measured the dropoff in quality from original negative to finished deliverable projection print, and they struggled to reach 4K from the prints. Newer print methods where you can probably laser-burn a 15K scan of the negative directly to release prints can probably go higher, but at least back then the buildup of grain and fuzziness was kind of severe. But for the question of is Alexa65 in digital IMAX mode (full DCI 1.9:1 gate uncropped) worth it? Well honestly. If you are going to frame, shoot, and edit it like a normal film, then it's a waste of expenses, because so few people will notice or even care. What I feel that most movies shot on giant sensors and film forget is that what made those films look like 70mm, was probably more about how stuff was shot more than what they shot it with. You certainly CAN shoot a kitchen drama on IMAX but if you are not changing how it's presented I will still only see a cheap boring kitchen drama.
Your first thesis (10x smaller grain at same image display size) seems obvious but doesn't show in any of the footage available to me. Grain size and amout seems to be quite identical to smaller formats. In the video I try to find en explanation for it and my guess is that the drop in light on any given area will cancel out the described effect. Second part is missing the point. Nobody was saying that. Next part seem plausible and would explain the lack of visible detail. But that means that for acquisition, a smaller format (digital) would be better then an original IMAX The last question didn't come up? Alexa65 in IMAX is astrange choice for lack of resolution and wide aspect of the sensor
@@MediaDivision Were you comparing 70mm/65mm with 35mm from the same era of filmstock development, or vs. newer stocks? You mention Lawrence of Arabia and 2001: A Space Odyssey, but not what 35mm or 16mm examples you were comparing them to.
Grain is noticeably larger on films that intentionally use Super 16 as their format. Jackie would be a recent example, another would be First Man, which uses 16, 35, and IMAX filmstocks for different portions of the film.
Isn't it also basically about resolution when projecting onto an Imax sized screen? Won't Imax capture will look sharper and have more detail vs 35mm Imax blow up on a screen of that size?
Sure... but most of the time it doesn’t really play out that way. If you watch the episode... it’s all in there. With the given field of view the resolution for any given area wouldn’t be higher even if the theoretical resolution could be reached.
Nolan is very busy right now with he's new film, but I really hope he gonna see this one point and give you some answers. Some he's crew have seen your work ;) Love you both!!
Ford did not write that so it is wrong to attribute the quote to him. It is just as wrong as f I attributed the quote to you because you wrote it in your comment... You and Ford are just reciting something someone else wrote...
True… but I bet my underpants that I could have used any of the lenses in my safe (given that they would be redesigned to stretch the image to cover) would give a similar result, and I have old cheap glass in there ;-) Glass has less evolved in the last 40 years then people think IMHO
Just one word, perfect. I discovered this channel recommended by a friend of mine and I must say that looking at you is oxygen for the mind and for the eyes. Superlative quality. Very useful also for someone like me who has recently discovered this wonderful world of photography.
Thanks a lot for your kindness and for supporting us. You make it possible!!! I hope we can pave your way to be the filmmaker or photographer you want to be.
Tbh, I’ve until todays not experienced even 8k, but now seeing your works about 16k and zooming of objects just blew my mind. Awesome work, hats off for that Sir 🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
I believe I have watched this video at least 3 times and continue to learn something new each time. By and far the most informative cinematography channel on UA-cam. I hope you continue to push this kind of content out!
@@satishmalaghan2411 quality over quantity. samsung likes doing things just because they can and want to do it first. not that samsung is a bad phone, just they try way too hard just to say they did it first.
I like your work of storytelling in many aspects, especially the analysis and criticism that questions everything in cinematography. Keep up your channel - it’s a treasure :)
Thanks Jerome… totally our pleasure. Sometimes I like to take a big step back to get a bigger picker and I am glad you appreciate that. We will try to improve on our journey… thanks for hanging
Your content is incredible. I had left photography for over a decade. Well, I never really "left" but I just took quick phone pics which can't even compare with the small Sony Cybershot that fit in my pocket when I was a kid. I now have a full frame Sony mirrorless camera on the way and am learning a lot of interesting things through your channel.
12K ... 80MP this 16K ... 200 MP... 2.5x the resolution. The ursa 12K is a lot of marketing as the 12k refer to sub pixel and not to effective resolution. So... ursa 12k is way below this
Resolution alone doesn't mean anything these days honestly! I am not even surprised by that. The formats that benefit from higher resolutions are mostly TV and Web shows for the cropping advantage. In drama it is far less applicable beyond niche purposes. High resolution sensors should always be taken with a grain of salt, especially with small sensor sizes.
You are lacking the phantasy of what massive resolution can do and how it changes the ways we consume a medium... not to say that the BMD ursa 12 is or does that at any stretch.
@@MediaDivision don't get me wrong here, I marvel about the high detail and resolution in certain movies. The detail can add so much to the experience when done well and offers better footage for CG integration. The few IMAX movies I have seen simply blew my mind back in the day. But coming from a photography standpoint I must admit that I can't imagine a small image sensor producing a more beautiful image only due to its resolution. When it comes to resolution, 120 film still delivers more than I can hope for and I haven't seen anything getting even close to the beauty and detail I have seen when I was able to look at the original large format slides made for matte backgrounds for 2001: A space Odissey. Digital cinema is now at a point where the big improvements aren't made in sheer image quality anymore.
Exactly ! I was one of the guy who believed perspective & distance matters & rest can be compensated through focal length in lens, after learning from 8mm film to 20x24 large format photography i understood it, for example Sharps new full resolution 16k (15360x8640p ) camera with 133 megapixels on 35mm sensor size is a modern day example of this. Well very logical video ✌️
As an aside, I love these old Siemens projectors! When I was AV Technician at Ravensbourne College of Art and Design back in the 70s I had a pair of them. They were my pride and joy and I looked after them so carefully. These were used to project such masterpieces as Barbarella and BlowUp. It's great to see them running in some of your videos - thank you for the memory jolt! :-) Steve Bell.
Amazing footage! However, since it seems the formats are not making much difference in sensor formats should I still upgrade from GH5 MFT's to FF or larger and into 8k to keep up with the Pro market? In other words, I have no idea what camera to buy next!
Thanks Richard.... my personal take away from this is that you don't have to buy a "next camera".... that is a great thing ;-) Everything might change tomorrow
Hats off to you, the effort behind the production quality in your UA-cam videos are superb! You deserve much more subscribers, keep up the awesome work!
"Why are we doing it then? Well...because we can." Brilliant. I love your crazy experiments. Also, I could watch that Siemens projector all day long. It's just so gorgeous.
This is one of the best videos I've seen in a long time in UA-cam. Fucking genius idea. Edit: Also, 25K subs only? For what's about the best production quality on UA-cam? Jesus fucking Christ.
with "modern" I assume you are talking about the digital versions.... so 6k on a massive screen will do for you? OK. But think about other applications like touchscreen . wall etc. If resolution matters lies strongly in the use case.
@@AugmentedGravity especially if you are going for full IMAX aspect… Alexa 65 is a bit odd as it is not full hight… If 8K+ ever made sense, then it does in an IMAX cinema AFTER their installed new laser projectors because current ones "only" support "over 4K"
If I sit in the front half of an IMAX theater, I can see the pixels if it is a digital projection. For small theaters that show arthouse films I have to sit in the back rows to not see the pixels in a 2K or 1080p projection.
As I have recently bought an 8K TV (LG 75SM9900PLA, I run it with my new Ryzen 7 3700X with 2080 Super), I just had to subscribe to this channel for 8K content. Really high production value.
@@MediaDivision As I run Windows 10 in 8K on it and try running games in 8K one by one, it is already put to good use. My old TV is a Full HD LG Plasma, so I jumped a resolution generation. Your video looks awesome!
quality options 8k Me: hmmmmm my hardware can handle that. Pc: yooooooo chill man, what are you doing fuhh you mean! Me: Plays video PC: spontaneous combustion....
Not in tears of pixel, but in terms of bandwidth. The additional bandwidth improves YT quality drastically. That’s why the 4k stream looks much better than the 1080 stream, too.
That should easy… Hubble likely achieves the high resolutions by shifting the sensor… The CCDs have only 640,000 pixels and Hubble has four of thouse. You could do that with any sensor, given that you have the time, setup and software… and most importantly… the lens. NERD OUT!!!!!!!
@@MediaDivision Given the irregular shapes of some of the "Deep Field" images (amazing stuff), it's likely there's a fair bit of multiple image stitching. The "Ultra Deep Field" image also required eleven days of exposure. Slow movie. Someone at NASA was counting every damn photon. Shifting the sensors would be easy for them - super nerds - but it would be a whole lot simpler just to point the whole thing. You don't have to think about getting near the edges of the lens coverage and worrying about image quality.
UA-cam is the only place people can find true 4K content and beyond, we hardly have enough native 4k content that isn't upscaled on the market and tv manufactures are already pushing for 8k.
The quality of the content is remarkably awesome. 20 minutes of pure learning experience. I'm a novice photographer and this video has inspired me to get into videography. Subscribed and sharing this video with my fellow film makers. Much love from 🇸🇦 🇵🇰
I think that there is at least one obvious reason to use large format in cinematography besides "coolness" and rareness. I also think Scorsese uses large format mostly for that. The real reason is that large format gives you much more possibilities to shoot wide scenes with specific lens in situations when it's easier to use larger format. Real shooting, especially locations don't give you ideal conditions for shot that you imagined in your head. For example if you don't want to use very wide lenses and you need to get more information (set, actors) in shot. Useful for narrow locations like in Space Odyssey (space ships), hateful 8 (house in woods multiple actors in set), batman last knight (scene in an airplane). Or if you want to show largeness of the scene like Dunkirk. I don't see those things are not achievable with super 35 but those directors can afford to use this technology and they use it. Even that large format for most people doesn't really make huge difference in the feel of the movie.
Thanks for your input Dima! I use medium format with focal reducers, and what you are talking about is solely a lens problem. I have much wider lenses that are distortion free for s35 and FF then I have for medium format. The perspective is up to the distance and that is not altered by the format.
Hi Media Division, I´m a VFX Artist and my answer to you about why the large formats are important is; the more detail you have on one shot the easier it is to us make compositing of visual effects on the scene. I´ve worked with 1080p - 2k - 4k - 6k, and yes 6k is very big and slows your work down but for tracking shots is amazing, you can track a shot in 6k in the first or second time. In 1080p for example is much more difficult to do that. I speak from experience. :)
Hi Joao, We work and do FX with 4K, 6K, 8k all the time… of course higher resolutions benefit that work… this video was edited and uploaded in 8K. The point of this video is a bit to show that large format are not necessarily deliver higher resolution. Under ideal lighting conditions and with longer exposures (both easy to do with many FX shots) large formats deliver, but used in anything like normal lighting, the lack of light will bring a result that is very similar to s35… sometimes even indistinguishable… thats why I bring up the thermic hypothesis. The scenes I show here are all non VFX shots
I am N o Professional cinematographer but I shot on full frame over super 35 because of the options in term of fast aperture lenses, i imagine that directors who shot on large format are doing a similar but different thing, they are choosing large format because they can get hold of medium/large format glass at F2.8 or below, stuff us mortals can't get hold of and would be almost impossible to produce for a smaller formats like s35.
?!? Full frame doesn't have generally faster lenses? I have medium format glass up to f1.9 and I boost it to Full Format… you can get hold of it easily as mortal… we made a whole episode about the subject ua-cam.com/video/ntohzgTm5Lo/v-deo.html Of course, you can replicate the exact same look even with a micro four third, given you find fast enough glas… but, too shallow depth of filed is not something you want in film anyway.
@@MediaDivision This reply is probably too late but my answer is that the convince and reliability of a native lens may appeal to people in the industry as aposted to adapting lenses the get the correct fit.(although i am shore i am probably wrong). the second point about the fast aperture medium format lenses, i was thinking of cinema style lens, closer to the lecia summicron style. (i actually have a mamiya 645 afd ii which i use the 80mm f1.9 for stills( i bought it after i watched your video when i first ran into your channel)). in summary i am probably wrong and poorly communicated my thoughts. P.S. CineBlogs i hope this is a satisfying 'blow up' for you. P.P.S. Media division Thanks for tanking the time to get involved with your audience.
Hello, a quick disclaimer first, I'm not an expert on this topic, I just find this fascinating. I've read some of your comments, and I have to point out that, it's a misconception that perspective is only affected by the distance between object and camera. The lens, in fact, can affect perspective, that is, how big an object in the background looks compared to another in the foreground. This is called 'image size ratio'. For a normal lens, this number is bigger than one, making distant object smaller(entocentric perspective). Some exotic lens design can make this number approach, even become smaller than one, they are called telecentric and hypercentric perspective. Ben from applied science has a great video on this topic, which can be found here: Hypercentric optics: A camera lens that can see behind objects ua-cam.com/video/iJ4yL6kaV1A/v-deo.html And more in-depth information can be found in his video's description. Then is something I cannot say for sure. Image size ratio can be affected by magnification ratio and pupil magnification ratio(how big exit pupil is compared to entrance pupil), how? I don't know. To what extent, I don't know. My guess is, real lenses lie somewhere in between entocentric and telecentric, different lens design may thus create different perspective. (One way to understand this is that, when one says perspective is determined by the distance between object and camera, what he really means is the distance between object and an imaginary point determined by the lens design. Problem is, that point can be outside of the lens, for a telecentric lens, that point is at infinity, for a hypercentric lens, that point is somewhere behind the further object when viewed from the camera.) I may be entirely wrong thought.
@@MediaDivision Wait a little and update is coming soon when UA-cam 16K reveal, upload 16k and you will get native quality, by the way you made amazing video, thank you so much! God bless you!
@@FantasyNero You can get native quality right now by downloading the file we provided………… if you drive it with 4x 8K monitors you could even see it. Thanks man
This channel is amazing and has the most informative explanations. The video production is great too and for free! I’m deep in the rabbit hole thanks to this channel.
The conclusion with the sensor sizes really blew my mind I was a little scared that super speeds covering only super35 will become obsolete. Now I don't care anymore
That is not to say that larger formats have their benefits… like a wider range of adaptable lenses, potential higher resolution… but don't worry. The Super Speeds will have their place
Thanks a lot man.... I think we improved a lot with our newer episodes. Watch our Canon FD and our f0.7 episodes... and hold on to your butt, we got something amazing in the slot for end of January
Most cinematography nerdy video ever. Congratulations. But you won't be able to notice any difference whatsoever between imax and 35mm in a digital scan (blueray or anything else). You have to see it in film. Thats when I think its very noticeable.
Thanks Antonio... that is what I'm going for ;-) That sound a bit like it's something ones brain generates... a visual placebo? With 8K scans there should be virtually no difference and we must take in account, that some 66mm and IMAX productions will have a digital intermediate (not Dunkirk though)
@@MediaDivision i dont think its the frame size rather the screen size that blew me away when watching imax footage in the theater, def not the same effect when watching at home or on a computer screen. So i would say watching a super35mm image at the same size on an Imax screen would feel the same and probably no perceivable difference in the theater
@@nicholasboule5134 You would see an enormous difference between S35 and 15/70 on an IMAX screen. It would be shockingly different to even an inexperienced viewer. In fact, we can see IMAX intercut with S35 or 3/65 blowups all the time (Dunkirk/Dark Knight/DK Rises/Ghost Protocol are great examples of this), and the differences between the larger format scenes are indeed shocking. On a normal-sized screen, well the results would be less impressive, but the color would be better, grain much tighter, and the picture much brighter. Has anyone ever shot 135 film vs 120 or large format film? You simply can't blowup 135 to the same size as larger formats...that's why the larger formats were used for things like billboard advertisements, but even magazine sizes will clearly illustrate the difference in quality.
Interesting! One argument for a larger sensor is that light cannot be focused down to an infinitely small spot. Having a bigger sensor allows for a better resolution, limited by the wave nature of light.
Yes... the Nyquist limit. Additionally refraction kicks in later, but 1 inch 8K sensors and 12K Ursas show that we haven't hit that limit and that it will not be relevant for conventional filmmaking.
Thanks to the UA-cam Algorithm that I stumbled upon this video. It's always great to find people like you who go out of their way to experiment with things. Great Production btw.
@@RubenKelevra Nope...Film production opts the way of simultaneous rendering of clips on multiple high performance servers across the planet! All of the edited clips just takes around a week or less to render!🤘 But just the editing and post production VFX work takes time...
As a projectionist I can tell you that large format prints are not only brighter than 35mm, they are much more steady and look cleaner because of the lower magnification needed. Dust and scratches almost disappear and the image doesn't wobble and dance. 35mm blowups to 70mm don't look quite as good, but have some of the advenatges of large format.
Interesting... these are all purely mechanical aspects that are not intrinsic to the large format as a acquisition format and don't apply to digital. The reduced jitter alone will cause a sharper appearance in an analog projection way surpassing the gain in resolution of the negative.
I saw Dunkirk on a 5 story iMax screen in Manhattan. I though the difference between the iMax70mm scenes and the 65mm scenes were very apparent and not just because of the aspect ratio change. The iMax was so much better that I originally thought that the 65mm scenes must have been 35mm because they looked so much less detailed than the iMax footage. I was surprised to find out later that they were shot on 65mm because the iMax footage looked so much better than the 65. Maybe you have to see it projected on a giant screen like this to really appreciate the improvement of imax70mm over 65mm, but there is definitely a difference. I wish he would have shot the whole movie in iMax70mm. Regardless, cool video experiment you did here.
The oversampling to 4K already shows you some of the benefits… the crop in during the zoom shows how much information is in there even on low resolutions
You know it's going to be an amazing video when the projector is being used as a prop! Great work, beautiful shots as always. Your content never disappoints.
This is a classic example of where UA-cam can be truly taken to new heights, the level of expertise & production values in this video is awesome. UA-cam needs more expert creators like you, subscribed and congrats.
Thanks a lot man… I wish that UA-cam would value quality and promote stuff like this
@@zebunker What do you mean by that?
@@prototyp60 About every 500 comments you get a turd... statistics I guess. And it seems to correlate with birth statistics, like that one shows.
But did you hit the notification bell?
There is a lot of expert people doing amazing stuff, you just need to find them, cause UA-cam only displays what is trending which is in majority just a pile of shit sadly.
When you started zooming into the 16K image my mind exploded time after time. What an awesome video!
Thanks a lot Oren...... yeah, super high resolution opens up amazing possibilities... hardly worth it for most applications
Oren Kirschenbaum that detail, beautiful.
@@Alex-cw3rz you are right. If you will display only one of this 9 6k frames on a full screen, you will see only small part of the scene - around 11%, so the zoom will be relatively smaller from this single frame then what it was from 9 frames combined. Take a look at what central 6k frame cover, from that you would be able to achieve same zoomed part quality. So basically first big part of the zoom is from 16k back to 6k.
We say no to pay to win bear in mind that 16k just like 6k is just the format size.. so he just stiched 9 angles together to make a 16k format video to make this presentation nothing else.. the zooming in with just one video of 6k would still be as sharp in the end result.
Correct me if I’m wrong tho, lol
what Oren said
I'm a professional cinematographer with 16 years under my belt with over 30+ features and 100's of shorts, tv commercials, and music videos... I can shed some light onto this subject about LF + vs s35mm, 16mm, ect... The thing that changes is not "perspective" so to speak, but how the lens distortion / angle of view vs it's characteristics changes. A 50mm on s35mm has naturally a decent amount of shallow depth of field due to it's design. When you jump to a larger image sensor with the SAME 50mm (so long as the lenses image circle can cover the size of the larger sensor) you get a different field of view with a depth of field characteristic of a 50mm vs say if you matched the equivalent lens as a 25mm on an s35mm sensor. It is inherent that the wider your lens is MM wise, the less shallow the depth of field is naturally at a given distance.
What LF and larger sensors offer is a different visual feel per lens. Your 50mm slightly telephoto lens you normally use on s35mm now becomes a wide angle lens on the LF but without the limitations of wide angle depth of field. You can have less depth of field with a wider field of view now. This is the main and only difference you are getting other than resolution. This is why cinematographers are picking LF and IMAX, because they allow a characteristic with lenses that can only be achieved with the optical to sensor size ratio of those systems.
It's a similar reason / way that anamorphic lenses feel different. 2x anamorphic lenses have the same height as the lens suggests (50mm image height on s35 = 50mm de-squeezed image height from anamorphic 4:3 image) However the WIDTH doubles, so you get a frame that is inheriting the "best" of both lens sizes, the depth of field of a 50mm, but the wide frame of a 25mm. A "wide angle" anamorphic lens is usually about 40mm before lens distortion becomes noticeable. So as you can see this is a similar way to handling anamorpic.
The difference is all in the lens choices, and this allows you to move the camera in closer, with less distorted faces on wider angles, while keeping the feel of a more telephoto lens. It's a more natural way to look at something "up close". Hope this helps clear up "WHY" DP's choose larger formats for reasons beyond just resolution needs.
Hello Joe… thank you for your long and elaborate comment. I really appreciate your input and took the time to really go into it. Please take that as a form of appreciation and not for being argumentative.
I work with seasoned directors, DoPs, and 1ACs a bit and it happens quite a lot that I run into misconceptions… simply because they are not part of practical work that is done, and few really test these things. Professionals are often less nerdy or substantially interested in these matters as one might think. I was surprised to hear even Roger Deakins make several statements in an Arri video, that are simply incorrect.
I am not saying that you are guilty of that, but I learned to take everything with a grain of salt and to not accept an “argument of authority”. Hence, any argument has to stand by its own merit, no matter the experience of the person making the argument. Please don’t take that as an attack of any kind but as an opportunity to challenge some of ones viewpoints. I don’t want to be wrong any longer than I have to be, and I hope that my discussion partner has that same attitude and we can evaluate things in that spirit - so, let’s go.
We totally agree that perspective is generated by distance of camera to subject only.
Focal length and sensor size have no baring on it.
DoF is a physical property that is generated by focal length, sensor size and aperture (a lenses design has no influence on that other than by altering the named ingredients, I don’t think you meant that but I just want to avoid missunderstandings)
Now let’s go to you example and let’s say, we focus on an object 5 meters away
A 50mm at f/2.8 on super35 has a DoF of 1.18m
The same 50mm at f/2.8 on super65 has a DoF of 2.33m
The FoV is vastly different
26mm at f/1.5 on super35 and a 50mm at f/2.8 on super65 have identical FoV and DoF
This is the equivalency of lenses.
Now, as we didn’t change the distance in any of the samples, the super35 and the super65 will generate the exact same image… eventual differences are due to different lens designs or film properties.
Do we agree so far?
Perspective distortions are generated by the distance and the field of view, so not in particular by a focal length. This is why a 8mm on super16 doesn’t have more or less distortions potential than a 18mm on super35 or 35mm on super65. Barrel distortions are not format specific, but related to lens designs and in particular flange distance. In this example the 35mm on super65 will have the most barrel distortion potential because of the massive flange of the system. We have a lot of long flange medium formt glass and the barrel distortion is very strong at moderate wide angles.
Do we still agree?
You start to talk about “feel” … that is not more tangible than the famous ”full frame look” that doesn’t exist. The change in DoF is easily countered by aperture so the remaining benefit is a gain resolution. But of course, that is only true with analog film. Digital sensors are resolution agnostic. A super35 RED Helium has a higher resolution than the ALEXA 65, so, it that special case, we would see a drop in resolution. By that logic, there is no characteristic with lenses that can only be achieved with larger formats..
Your statement that you can get closer to faces and have less distortions (perspective and or barrel) is incorrect. You will not get the telephoto compression (feel!?!). The perspective (compression is a property of perspective) is only generated by distance to subject (as was our first point). The video this comments are on proves that to you by comparing shots of the same subject at the distance inMFT to super35 to Full Frame to 4x5…. And as you can see, there is no difference in perspective or compression. There is a difference in DoF, but that is simply because we didn’t design this experiment to match those. The magnification of the background of the 4x5 must be some kind of fuck up in our setup… it defies theory.
Anamorphics are a whole new can of worms that I am quite familiar with… I own and use Atlas Orion, several projector lenses, and adapters with different stretch factors. Let us put that aside for now not to make things more complicated. We will release an episode regarding Anamorphic later this year.
Thank you again for your Input Joe… it is much appreciated and I hope you don’t feel like this is an attack against your profession or expertise in the subject. It is just so rare that you meet someone who actually shoots large format right next to regular formats. If you see those results you realise, that you really can’t tell the difference if you intercut the footage. This is even more true size the digital sensors relativised the resolution factor.
@@MediaDivision I think you misunderstood the "feel" and lens comparison issue. I will shoot a test to explain what I'm talking about to show you a real world example of wide vs telephoto distortion on LF vs s35mm. I own an Alexa XT and my friend has an LF so I can do a real world comparison with the same set of lenses / distance ect.
@@MediaDivision Also the equivalency of lenses that you speak of is exactly my point. You're talking about a T2.8 vs a T1.5, yet if you're already using the max T stop on a lens, lets say T2, then you cannot get the equivalent DOF for the FOV, hence there is your difference. Which is why I was saying its more about the lenses than anything else. If you want to match DOF but are already wide open on the lens, you cannot open wider to compensate. Also optical design of a lens has an inherent DOF limit, as discussed and this is where most want the difference. It's making your 50mm now a 30mm (rounding) so now you're also taking your tool and changing it's characteristics. Most wide angle lenses have less DOF by the lenses physical restriction optically. If you're wanting a fast, wide open aperture wide angle lens, up close, the larger formats do this for you. Now you don't have a Tstop restriction / compensation to deal with.
Please... do your test, that might be interesting just for yourself. You wouldn't even need another cam... you could just compare your super35 to a 16mm crop from that We do agree that DoF is changing....but that also means that you can easily compensate with the aperture. So, no LF magic there... especially no compression. Yes, lenses have design limits, but you will be hard pressed to find lenses so fast for super65, that you couldn't find fast enough FF lenses to compensate. Anyhow, though you might be able to think up a specific situation where a large format has a massive advantage, that has nothing to do with an intrinsic look that would make LF desirable. Btw. If I was DoP for a project that demanded extremely shallow DoF, super65 or IMAX would not be my choice at all... the availability of extremely fast lens on FF would out-perform all lens options for the larger format by far. If you are interested... our next episode will be "F0.7 filming at ultra speed"... and we are going to do just that.
@@MediaDivision Just to revive the topic, I think both of you are correct to some extent. Lens development within recent history has focused mostly on the 35mm format to the point where that's where you'd find the best lenses if what you're looking for is shallowest depth of field. However, lens format equivalency only goes so far as there are real world limitations to how good you can make a large aperture wide angle or something like that look optically good without heavy correction for vignetting, abberations, etc. all over the place. There are very real tests out there of how the wide angle Fuji GFX 23mm f4 (designed for a sensor with a 0.7 crop factor relative to full frame) lacks field curvature, vignetting, cats eyeing, abberations and resolves better out to its edge versus any 18mm full frame lens in existance (noting that 23 is equivalent to 16mm). Just trying to give some support to both sides of the argument.
UA-camr that actually think, re-think, deconstructing and doubting with a fresh perspective while actually experimenting on things that most of us just taking for granted. You sir, have my respect.
Thats the mission plan ;-) thanks for your kindness Yusron
IMAX : It's not possible!
Nikolas : No . It's necessary!
Thats the spirit man ;-)
Interstellar reference? I like it.
Wasn’t that from interstellar
@@zackisback3651 It is and it also have a literary reference too I am forgetting now.
This is easily one of the most outstanding production qualities I have seen on UA-cam so far. The zooming in part with the music reminds me of a documentary film that explains travel through space as you are slowly passing by planets. Vibes.
Thanks a lot Nagart.... spread the word :-) it is actually a very very little reminisces of an old old docu: "Powers of Ten".... ua-cam.com/video/0fKBhvDjuy0/v-deo.html
Media Division That’s all I could think of! Love Eames.
But he forgot about audio quality :(
Best video i ever seen on internet
Thats quite a high bar... thanks man. Watch our newer ones... I think we improved a lot since.
@@MediaDivision Ok
Its the cool thing about the internet, you get see the experts on any subject. Love watching people who really know what they are talking about and who can get it across to the pro and layman at the same time. Great video
Good one xD
Hyperbole
Chris Nolan: "You've gone too far!"
... sorry Chris... you can borrow my cam for the weekend ;-)
We need to go deeper.
16K? It's not possible!
No, it's necessary!
Kubrick : this isn't my final form
@XY ZW According to Nolan, 35mm is 12K, 70mm is 15K, and Imax 70mm is 18K.
These videos are always such a treat! Definitely downloading the file!
Thanks a lot man… have fun with it and spread the word!!!
I only recently discovered this channel, and it blows my mind that absolutely amazing content like this can get lost in the sheer volume of stuff being uploaded to platforms like UA-cam nowadays. You definitely deserve more recognition!
Thanks Nimimerkki.... I still hope that quality prevails someday… spread the word
29k subs???? you are so underrated for the quality of content you produce! keep up the great work
Thanks Viper. I surely hope that changes.... spread the word
Agree! You're a star man!
VIPΞR 1 I am surprised that there are even one thousand people on the whole planet who would care about the subject so much to subscribe to this channel...
The next step is to film using a BMPCC4K and stack it on a large format lens. Much, much higher resolution!
You could use an iPhone for even more ... but it gets mechanically and digitally exponentially harder to handle
Why would you want this much resolution? I get 8K, it gets you a lot of room for stabilization and a bit of cropping for 4K output. But there is No application where you need to output that much on a screen. If I had to zoom that far in in editing, I might fire my dp 😂
There are many applications starting at IMAX... and there will be others like viewing distance agnostic screens. Large format screens that reveal detail on approach
Media Division You know IMAX isn’t even 4K? Apple Glass uses 8K screens since they are that close to your eyes and are supposed to fulfill retina standards. Anything else doesn’t profit from higher resolution. Billboards have a ridiculously low resolution since they are meant to be seen in the distance. TV and Monitors are supposed to fit in your room, and field of vision. So no higher resolution required there. 12K screens and beyond will never be worth the cost for the average or even enthusiast user, so it might never become more than a novelty. If incremental improvements where worth the cost, we would all have used Betamax instead of VHS and UHD 3D would be a thing.
@@annonymat Correct, IMAX isn't 4K. It's projected from film, which is often printed at far higher resolutions. Digital IMAX is projected using 2x2k projectors, but we don't talk about that.
And if you really can't tell between 2K and 4K on an IMAX-sized screen, you should schedule your optometrist appointment ASAP.
Hands down THE most underrated cinema/photography/videography channel on UA-cam, can’t wait to see you truly climb the ranks as you deserve
A trophy I would love to shed man.... spread the word if you be so kind. Thanks a lot for your kindness Lazer
Your projector demonstration is wonderful. We have a pair of Philips DP70s and show both 35 and 70mm, and you would be surprised by how intense the active cooling of the film gate is. It pulls city water, runs it through channels in the film gate, and then sends it straight to the sewer. The amount of removed heat is enough that you can feel a temperature difference in the intake and exhaust pipes.
watching with a 1080p display...
Just watch it later on a big ass 4K TV and get close
Watching this on a 3120 x 1440 resolution smartphone which in about 2 feet away means I can't tell the difference between that resolution and 1560 x 720.
But I can see the difference inches away from my face.
Me on 144p
PICK NONAME Still awesome;)
@@Rt_domingo condolences😂😂
His conclusion is exactly what I expected. It is the lens that makes the image, not the sensor. I have a degree in physics, I use the focal formulas which predict no difference. And when I use the term aperture I mean the aperture, not the f/number which is in fact the focal ratio.
We use focal ratio (f/number) and focal length because of the film legacy which means that the gain coefficient (ISO number) we use is affected by the sensor size and depth of field is a complicated combination of all three.
If we moved to using field of view in degrees and aperture (i.e. the effective diameter of the lens), then the gain coefficient does not change with the sensor size, nor does field of view. Lenses with a 40 degree field of view and a 35 mm aperture will have the exact same gain coefficient and DoF regardless of sensor size. That lens would need be a 50mm f/1.4 on an FX camera, a 75mm f/2 on a DX and so on.
There is in fact a small advantage to a larger sensor which is that there are physical limits that make making good lenses faster than f/1 very challenging. But in this case, the lens was an f/5.6 which means we are nowhere close to that limit. And it is no different with medium format. There is no medium format lens that I know of that has a larger aperture than the Nikon or Canon lens with the same field of view. I have been through the Hasselblad and Phase One catalogs and could not find a single one. There is also a diffraction issue that means that Nikon and Canon will find it difficult to move beyond 400MP without the use of digital post processing like we have on phone cameras.
So yes, 35mm turns out to be the sweet spot for digital photography. Bigger sensors won't help unless you are making ultra-specialist optics and even there the sensor technologies Sony, Nikon and Canon use are far ahead of that used in any of the medium format cameras.
Bigger sensor was better for film because the sensor response was dependent on sensor area. That is not true for digital.
Thank you for the interesting read Phillip. How would you explain the changing magnification in the background that we see comparing beyond IMAX and the "Normal" sizes?
@@MediaDivision and the squeezed look of bokeh balls on an anamorphic lens?
Excellent point. That would be assuming the sensor size is 36x36, right? I think part of the problem is that many so-called “full frame” sensors are far too wide and nowhere near a 1:1 ratio and the impact of that can be even worse when using anamorphic lenses. While I’m sure the benefits are rather subtle, there could be some vertical potential there.
Larger sensors enable you to use longer focal lengths. Creating totally different look (check out LargeSense LS911). Also, you need larger sensors to have larger pixels, so you have less noise. You cant add pixels on a fixed size sensor indefinitely. As you do need more megapixels to make quality prints. People still printing at 300ppi, meaning its upscaled mush. Simply because even 100 megapixels is not enough for a proper print. But this is for photography, video is different.
Digital has a big problem, of being fixed resolution. Like watching 1080p content on a 4k monitor, looks horrible. All the stuff that has been filmed on early digital, will age really badly.
If you want to print big at 600 or 720ppi, you need a fuckton of megapixels. And the difference between 300 and 600ppi is really clear. Most, even gallery prints, made on digital still look quite bad because they simply cant offer enough megapixels to print in the sizes people are printing. So they are always resorting to upscaling, and then use shaperning to try to cover the mush they just produced.
I still use film simply because i can get file sizes of 0.5-1 gigapixels, and that is what i need for large quality prints. So i can match the files size to the printer resolution. The stuff shot 100 years ago, can be scanner perfectly to 1gigapixel. But stuff shot 5 years ago on the top of the line digital are stuck at the horrible low resolution.
There is a difference in having a degree in physics and actually understanding photography in practise and having some sort of vision about it and what you want to do with it.
Phillip Hallam-Baker You seem to know a lot about lenses and sensors. Any ideas how to make digital footage look more like film? #filmlook
14:55 I saw a Dunkirk showing projected 15/70mm and there was a huge difference in the quality from 65mm to 15/70mm when viewing this projected on a huge screen. Not only was the 15/70mm scenes much bigger(obviously) but they were MUCH cleaner.
I haven't seen Dunkirk in cinema, but it seems odd that a high end scan and zoom in shouldn't reveal that. Some IMAX "experts" told me that IMAX is not generally cleaner than smaller formats, and why would they be? Medium Format photo images are not generally cleaner than 35mm ones. Large format photos are/where used for still life a lot and the amazing quality is achieved with long exposures… can't do that in film ;-)
Media Division Dunkirk was indeed incredibly sharper, “cleaner” and with relevatorily better color in the 15 perf sequences. If you’ve seen any true IMAX screening with mixed formats, you could see this. Dunkirk, Dark Knight, Ghost Protocol, etc.
And medium format film is incredibly cleaner looking that 35mm. Medium and Large formats can be blown up so much larger.
And high end scans available simply cannot resolve these larger formats. The technology has not caught up.
And remember, Bayer is a totally different medium than the layered dye clouds on emulsion. Bayer is so degrading to an image. IMO a proper analogue process will usually look way nicer than a dingy di! Time your 35mm in the lab and I guarantee you the struck print will look way better than a scanned and digitally corrected and projected print.
@@jon4715 Yep. I've seen Dark Knight, Dark Knight rises and Dunkirk in IMAX 15 perf and the differences between the different formats are not even close when viewing on an IMAX screen. IMAX is so clean that it almost resembles something digital yet it's retains all of the benefits of film not to mention there is a certain look to it. One example is being able working closer to subjects with less distortion because of the crop. IMAX has a .49 crop factor.....so they actually used a 50mm lens for wide angle shots) . Medium format film annihilates 35mm film in general.
“Out of the 100 or so Imax prints that were made, a limited number were show prints struck from original Imax camera negative,” says David Hall. Those prints are showing in Imax venues in select cities, including Los Angeles, New York and London. “Chris very much likes to see an original camera negative printed to film,” he notes. “There’s nothing quite like it. Digital technology has certainly come a long way, but a print from a DI never looks quite the same.”
“Anybody who sees an original-negative print of a film shot in Imax is looking at the best image quality available to filmmakers today,” Nolan observes. “As long as any new technology is required to measure up to that, I think film has to remain the future.” theasc.com/ac_magazine/August2012/DarkKnightRises/page3.html
Maybe some day in the future we can get to a point where they can utilize those 67 x 54 MF digital sensors in a high end video format at around 10K resolution using the large photosites that ARRI is using we can start to approach IMAX in some capacities. As much as I love IMAX film it's just not a sustainable thing for the masses and I am hoping we can at least get digital closer to this.
Agreed, it isn't even a question when you view on a real IMAX screen and projector (not faux max). Every bit of the resolution is being used. On our 60x80' Imax screen, if it is shot with large format, you go there. During the time they had the movies that would switch between Imax (film) and their other format (35mm?) it was amazing, not just because it opened up the frame but the clarity was so much better that made the rest of the movie look soft/fuzzy.
Of course, there is the reality that capture is only a small part of the process and every step along the way of re-encoding, color grading etc can reduce the difference. And for the current movies where they mix format, they want them to look similar they make make changes that reduce any big differences. So net benefit can certainly be reduced and probably questionable for most shoots.
Your channel must be amongst the top 10 cinematography channel in UA-cam . You sir have got a genuine subscriber from now onwards
Thanks a lot Robert! I wish! At least we made it in the top 35 of nofilmschool. Let's keep trying ;-) Lovely to have you around
I Agree
@@MediaDivision it's a pleasure . In a world of clever marketing, the brands are misguiding beginners introducing their " large format " [ 35mm full frame cine cameras ] . But nobody actually explains and tell the problems of celluloid cinematography and why so many formats existed . I was thinking about the MFT Format Blackmagic design PCC 4K and upcoming Sony a7S III Nd was doing research on the sensor sizes over last few weeks and most of my " Google-ed knowledge " is already being coined in your video . Now I can refer them to my friends too .
@@RobertChelios Thats what this channel is all about… Thank you Robert. But like I said, I am not perfect and I am willing to evolve my point of view given evidence… It is a journey! Right now, I would say that size does not matter………… much. If you go into anamorphic an such, the sensor size will matter (… you have to crop the pocket a lot to get a 4:3 image and then you get into low resolution problems)
@@MediaDivision 🤩
Gonna have to strongly disagree on the large format conclusion.
Compare 70mm Imax or 65mm footage to Super 35 or even Anamorphic 35mm and there is a huge difference in quality. Maybe not on a phone screen, but definitely on screens larger than a computer monitor. The grain and stability aren't even close.
Also, looking to old scans of LoA and 2001 for 70mm examples and comparing it to modern Super 35 is not reasonable. Film stocks have come a long way since the 60s- a better comparison would be to compare LoA/2001 to Dr. No, or Dunkirk to Phantom Thread.
These differences in quality are only amplified the larger the screen and the closer the audience sits. This is why IMAX and Large Format Presentations were invented. The negative carries a surplus of information compared to smaller film formats, allowing the screen to be bigger and the audience to sit closer. This means the screen takes up more of the audience's FOV, giving better immersion, while still having a higher percieved resolution.
Nolan/Tarantino/Scorsese don't shoot in IMAX and 70mm for the people watching on iPhones or laptops, they shoot in it for the people watching in premium theaters.
Exactly.
There is nothing quite like watching IMAX 70mm footage projected on a 80 foot IMAX 70mm film projection. It is mind blowing period. I've never seen such deep blacks, contrast, insane brightness, crazy resolution like I did watching Hateful 8 on 70 mm projection in Cinerama. Truly breathtaking!
You are aware that IMAX uses the same kind of negative substrate that normal s35 film uses? So, why would there be more contrast? If you where to watch a s35 film on a small screen, the effective resolution (dots per inch) would be higher. IMAX is immersive because it covers more FoV. The resolution on any given area is not per se higher to a small screen, neither is there more contrast.
You watched Hateful 8 IN Cinerama? Maybe in a Cinerama cinema, but to my knowledge it was never shown in a three projector Cinerama setup. It is ultra Panavision 70mm.
I'm not convinced that perspective is affected by sensor because it goes against every basic law of optics. What I suspect is there is a movement in the distance in the LENS. If your camera was stationary and you moved the LENS further back for the 35mm equivalent that would account for perspective shifting
I am not convinced of anything, just searching for explanations for an obvious different result to expectation. Maybe the mistake is indeed the position, we replicated the sensors position, not the lenses position. Lens position is hard to determine. Is it the front middle or back of a lens that defines the position? all in all we would talk about a difference of only a couple of centimeters this way or the other… there is a lot of magnification effect just given this little change in distance. Given the massive difference of the sensor sizes the effect would be neglect-able anyways.
@@MediaDivision I think you just explained it. The perspective would not have shifted if you kept the LENS in the same place and moved the sensor. As for where you need to measure from, I believe it is the rear nodal point of the lens: thats where thr rays cross and make the upside down image. This point is used by photostitchers shooting because you can pan and tilt along that point and get no parrallax. I'm not sure what your distances were but even the movement of a few cm could account for what differences you saw.
As for how big sensor shifting perspective... keep in mind your sensor is small compared to what artists used to draw on with their camera obscura.. they traced full on walls. And really a projector is just a camera in reverse... same exact principles and we dont see a shift in perspective from a 25ft screen to a 100ft screen.
@@FilmmakerIQ it might just be that, but we are taking about an object 10 meters away and a MFT camera with 35mm lens moved by 5cm towards that...... would that cause magnification of this extend... every bit of experience in me screams "hell no." Maybe it is something completely different.
@@MediaDivision Well every bit of experience in me screams "hell no" when you say perspective is affected by sensor size. I've done extensive experiments regarding forced perspective and precisely controlling the size of objects in the scene - search math and science of forced perspective on my channel. I even built a calculator that can determine precisely the angle of view of an object for a given distance.
There's something screwy with your focal length numbers on the lenses you used between the Beyond IMAX and the regular 35mm the focal length you used on the 35mm doesn't match what you should have used going with crop factor math (you should have had to use 82mm, not 70mm for your FF to match the beyond IMAX) - but let's ignore that for now (but it screws up how to think about this).
Now looking at your bellows - that's got to be at least 20 cm long - not 5 cm. So when you took the bellows off, and attached a normal zoom lens to the Kinefinity, you essentially stepped back 20 cm. Next I really think you're off with 10m to that white shelf - looks to me to be around 3-4m. Using my calculator a movement of 20cm closer to an object 4m would result in a 5% change in size. It's really hard to measure using screen grabs but that's in the neighborhood of what I'm seeing. But there's still a little more than 5% change - and that's where I wonder what's going on with your 70mm lens choice. You did something weird - you changed some variable without knowing it...
If you want to pursue your hypothesis as a possibility in the break of optical physics - you're going to need to be much more rigorous and precise in your measurements (which is super hard because the accuracy you need is very difficult to accomplish at these distances). But I suggest you try it and make a video on it - there's an audience on UA-cam that loves that stuff.
But otherwise, no, all of optical physics says only distance plays in perspective. Sensor size has no bearing whatsoever. Nothing you have shown here really proves otherwise.
@@FilmmakerIQ what the fuck are you talking....Going above my head lol ..😂😂
I'll stick to funny dog videos.
0:50
*"As always, we gonna upload this in 8k..."*
720p users: Am I a joke to you!
Thanks to youTube you can get every downsized version... but from a much better master... everybody wins.
But yes………… yes you are 😂
I am a 720p user....
144p am I a charity case to you?
My eyes can’t tell the difference above 720p 🤷🏻♂️
@@cjeam9199
I can notice every individual pixel in a 720p phone or PC.
While the light heat of projectors are a factor that drove release prints to be massive for massive screens, we shouldn't forget that the size of the grains are constant. At least when films of different sizes use the same emulsion. So if you have a frame size that is 10x 35mm, like IMAX. You can have 10x the screen size and the amount of grain per projected square decimeter would be the same.
Also, about blowing up 35 to imax... Well, firstly, the cost of IMAX is expensive, and since 95% of the cinemas are simply too small to take advantage of whatever you'd gain in detail-preservation, it's just not worth it. However, there was w period between the 70s and the mid 90s where blockbusters would get blowups to 5 perf 70mm. At first, it was to get surround sound (magnetic six-track vs optical two-track) but it also did get a better image since the buildup of defects are less noticeable the higher you go in film size. That trend died out somewhat as digital surround was standardized for 35mm.
Also, I do remember reading about tests where imax technicians measured the dropoff in quality from original negative to finished deliverable projection print, and they struggled to reach 4K from the prints. Newer print methods where you can probably laser-burn a 15K scan of the negative directly to release prints can probably go higher, but at least back then the buildup of grain and fuzziness was kind of severe.
But for the question of is Alexa65 in digital IMAX mode (full DCI 1.9:1 gate uncropped) worth it? Well honestly. If you are going to frame, shoot, and edit it like a normal film, then it's a waste of expenses, because so few people will notice or even care. What I feel that most movies shot on giant sensors and film forget is that what made those films look like 70mm, was probably more about how stuff was shot more than what they shot it with. You certainly CAN shoot a kitchen drama on IMAX but if you are not changing how it's presented I will still only see a cheap boring kitchen drama.
Your first thesis (10x smaller grain at same image display size) seems obvious but doesn't show in any of the footage available to me. Grain size and amout seems to be quite identical to smaller formats. In the video I try to find en explanation for it and my guess is that the drop in light on any given area will cancel out the described effect.
Second part is missing the point. Nobody was saying that.
Next part seem plausible and would explain the lack of visible detail. But that means that for acquisition, a smaller format (digital) would be better then an original IMAX
The last question didn't come up? Alexa65 in IMAX is astrange choice for lack of resolution and wide aspect of the sensor
@@MediaDivision Were you comparing 70mm/65mm with 35mm from the same era of filmstock development, or vs. newer stocks? You mention Lawrence of Arabia and 2001: A Space Odyssey, but not what 35mm or 16mm examples you were comparing them to.
Grain is noticeably larger on films that intentionally use Super 16 as their format. Jackie would be a recent example, another would be First Man, which uses 16, 35, and IMAX filmstocks for different portions of the film.
Isn't it also basically about resolution when projecting onto an Imax sized screen? Won't Imax capture will look sharper and have more detail vs 35mm Imax blow up on a screen of that size?
Sure... but most of the time it doesn’t really play out that way. If you watch the episode... it’s all in there. With the given field of view the resolution for any given area wouldn’t be higher even if the theoretical resolution could be reached.
It's been long since I saw such a simple and honest video about anything..
Thanks Aman... simple is relative ;-) you might like other filmmaking subject we handled
Was able to get the video to play back smoothly on my m2 max macbook pro with 64gb ram, using 54gb, to external 8k screen. Stunning
Cool… and you have to let the display fill your field of view to see an advantage over 8K
Nolan is very busy right now with he's new film, but I really hope he gonna see this one point and give you some answers. Some he's crew have seen your work ;) Love you both!!
How cool would that be... I love his films. Great cinema..... with or without large format.
To quote Harrison Ford: "Zoom and enhance"
...give me a hard copy right there
Ford did not write that so it is wrong to attribute the quote to him. It is just as wrong as f I attributed the quote to you because you wrote it in your comment... You and Ford are just reciting something someone else wrote...
Credits to the image rendition of that large format lens.
True… but I bet my underpants that I could have used any of the lenses in my safe (given that they would be redesigned to stretch the image to cover) would give a similar result, and I have old cheap glass in there ;-) Glass has less evolved in the last 40 years then people think IMHO
Just one word, perfect. I discovered this channel recommended by a friend of mine and I must say that looking at you is oxygen for the mind and for the eyes. Superlative quality. Very useful also for someone like me who has recently discovered this wonderful world of photography.
Thanks a lot for your kindness and for supporting us. You make it possible!!! I hope we can pave your way to be the filmmaker or photographer you want to be.
Tbh, I’ve until todays not experienced even 8k, but now seeing your works about 16k and zooming of objects just blew my mind. Awesome work, hats off for that Sir 🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
Totally our pleasure man. Always happy to teach and to entertain!
I believe I have watched this video at least 3 times and continue to learn something new each time. By and far the most informative cinematography channel on UA-cam. I hope you continue to push this kind of content out!
Only 3 times?!?!?! 😝😜Thanks a lot man... we will certainly try, but this has to make some money sooner or later.
You're just getting better and bigger..great to see you evolve and help us evolve.
Thanks a lot Micus… thats motivating!!!!
Very cool stuff! Looks like our phone sensors have a FAR way to go :)
You bet Ben………… but you would have a hard tim squeezing a phone with this sensor size in your pocket without risking your balls ;-)
@@MediaDivision Note 20 ultra
Can shoot 8K 24 fps
@@satishmalaghan2411 Note20 Ultra’s 8K looks worse than iPhone 11 Pro’s 4K lol
@@satishmalaghan2411 quality over quantity. samsung likes doing things just because they can and want to do it first. not that samsung is a bad phone, just they try way too hard just to say they did it first.
I like your work of storytelling in many aspects, especially the analysis and criticism that questions everything in cinematography. Keep up your channel - it’s a treasure :)
Thanks Jerome… totally our pleasure. Sometimes I like to take a big step back to get a bigger picker and I am glad you appreciate that. We will try to improve on our journey… thanks for hanging
Your content is incredible. I had left photography for over a decade. Well, I never really "left" but I just took quick phone pics which can't even compare with the small Sony Cybershot that fit in my pocket when I was a kid. I now have a full frame Sony mirrorless camera on the way and am learning a lot of interesting things through your channel.
Thank you Andres… glad you feel educated… thanks for hanging.
That vintage cut-scenes killed me 😸
😂 Jack Lemmon wast just a force of nature… The Great Race is still one of my all time favorite movies.
"wont be able to play in real time of course"
I think that is a challenge to Linus tech tips...
Sure… he can probably make this play… just us mere mortals will not. Please go ahead and challenge him with it.
this is a pro res file, so the better suited machine is their new 28 core hack pro
Yawn.
and then there is Blackmagic presenting a 16k camera just a couple of days ago. holy shit.
12K ... 80MP this 16K ... 200 MP... 2.5x the resolution. The ursa 12K is a lot of marketing as the 12k refer to sub pixel and not to effective resolution. So... ursa 12k is way below this
Hi Alex!
Resolution alone doesn't mean anything these days honestly! I am not even surprised by that. The formats that benefit from higher resolutions are mostly TV and Web shows for the cropping advantage. In drama it is far less applicable beyond niche purposes. High resolution sensors should always be taken with a grain of salt, especially with small sensor sizes.
You are lacking the phantasy of what massive resolution can do and how it changes the ways we consume a medium... not to say that the BMD ursa 12 is or does that at any stretch.
@@MediaDivision don't get me wrong here, I marvel about the high detail and resolution in certain movies. The detail can add so much to the experience when done well and offers better footage for CG integration. The few IMAX movies I have seen simply blew my mind back in the day. But coming from a photography standpoint I must admit that I can't imagine a small image sensor producing a more beautiful image only due to its resolution. When it comes to resolution, 120 film still delivers more than I can hope for and I haven't seen anything getting even close to the beauty and detail I have seen when I was able to look at the original large format slides made for matte backgrounds for 2001: A space Odissey. Digital cinema is now at a point where the big improvements aren't made in sheer image quality anymore.
Exactly ! I was one of the guy who believed perspective & distance matters & rest can be compensated through focal length in lens, after learning from 8mm film to 20x24 large format photography i understood it, for example Sharps new full resolution 16k (15360x8640p ) camera with 133 megapixels on 35mm sensor size is a modern day example of this. Well very logical video ✌️
thanks Kalyan
As an aside, I love these old Siemens projectors! When I was AV Technician at Ravensbourne College of Art and Design back in the 70s I had a pair of them. They were my pride and joy and I looked after them so carefully. These were used to project such masterpieces as Barbarella and BlowUp. It's great to see them running in some of your videos - thank you for the memory jolt! :-)
Steve Bell.
Pleasure Steve… I got 4 around here, but only one in working condition. They are quite some prima donnas ;-)
I was not going to subscribe initially but that clip just killed me. SUBSCRIPTION EARNED!
Hard work :-) glad to to have you around
Amazing footage! However, since it seems the formats are not making much difference in sensor formats should I still upgrade from GH5 MFT's to FF or larger and into 8k to keep up with the Pro market? In other words, I have no idea what camera to buy next!
Thanks Richard.... my personal take away from this is that you don't have to buy a "next camera".... that is a great thing ;-)
Everything might change tomorrow
Hats off to you, the effort behind the production quality in your UA-cam videos are superb! You deserve much more subscribers, keep up the awesome work!
Thank you so much Mark... I definitely could use more subs.... spread the word ;-) I'll try to be worthy
What a beautiful look into the possibilities and benefits of incredibly high-resolution recordings. Thank you for creating this.
Our pleasure Catch.... thanks for watching
@@MediaDivision Always. Thanks for keeping art as the target we strike with our technological bow and storytelling arrow.
I just had an eyegasm, amazing technology
😅eyegasm… good one! Thanks man!
"Why are we doing it then? Well...because we can."
Brilliant. I love your crazy experiments.
Also, I could watch that Siemens projector all day long. It's just so gorgeous.
Thanks Benjamin...... she is a beauty! And she sounds and smells like cinema magic.
Absolutely Godlike
Amen my friend ;-) Thanks a lot
This is one of the best videos I've seen in a long time in UA-cam. Fucking genius idea.
Edit: Also, 25K subs only? For what's about the best production quality on UA-cam? Jesus fucking Christ.
I agree, now all I need is 3 more GH5’s and a custom rig to hold all 4 cameras at once.
Thanks a lot man… yeah, well … spread the word I guess ;-))))))
Thanks man… That would be the Brenizer method… a lot of resolution but not the same properties as a large sensor (but who cares after this ;-)
The video itself is fantastic and full of deep level knowledge, but the discussion in comments is also gold!
Glad you enjoy man… thanks for hanging
Felt like watching one of those Cosmos documentaries. Great work as always.
Thanks man… glad you enjoy!
I just learned so many things
Glad you did… thanks for watching!
I think the modern IMAX formats are beautiful and more than enough.
with "modern" I assume you are talking about the digital versions.... so 6k on a massive screen will do for you? OK. But think about other applications like touchscreen . wall etc. If resolution matters lies strongly in the use case.
@@MediaDivision yes i mean digital, like arri 65 stuff and official imax digital cameras.
@@AugmentedGravity especially if you are going for full IMAX aspect… Alexa 65 is a bit odd as it is not full hight… If 8K+ ever made sense, then it does in an IMAX cinema AFTER their installed new laser projectors because current ones "only" support "over 4K"
@@MediaDivision Yeah i know, it kinda put me off as well. But it seems to be working. I hope they get 8k projectors soon, that would be awesome.
If I sit in the front half of an IMAX theater, I can see the pixels if it is a digital projection.
For small theaters that show arthouse films I have to sit in the back rows to not see the pixels in a 2K or 1080p projection.
You are a “FILM GOD!”
Bravo!
... I would fancy Shivas extra pair of arms for focus and iris ;-) Thanks Gerry
Didn't expect to see this kind of high level quality content on You tube! Thank you for sharing your expertise!
Doing our best to pull up the standard ;-) Our pleasure and that YOU for watching
Absolutely off the charts every time with these videos! I can’t believe what we’re seeing FOR FREE. Thank you!
Thanks man… we try. The support of our members make this project feasible - unfortunately there are to few to do this regularly
Whenever you upload my day gets so much better
That is wonderful... thank you. Now I need a million people feeling the same way ;-)
I love watching 16k footage at 8k on 1440p on my 1080p monitor!
Makes total sense! 😂
I change my phone resolution till WQHD+ 2960 × 1440 ... because iam so excited for your work . Amazing man
Thanks man....... glad you like it. You might want to watch this on a huge 4K TV set.... from one meter away ;-)
As I have recently bought an 8K TV (LG 75SM9900PLA, I run it with my new Ryzen 7 3700X with 2080 Super), I just had to subscribe to this channel for 8K content. Really high production value.
Glad to have you... at least a little 8k to feed the monster.
@@MediaDivision As I run Windows 10 in 8K on it and try running games in 8K one by one, it is already put to good use. My old TV is a Full HD LG Plasma, so I jumped a resolution generation. Your video looks awesome!
that was jaw dropping.... just, wow.
Thanks man... glad you enjoyed our little trip into resolution
quality options 8k
Me: hmmmmm my hardware can handle that.
Pc: yooooooo chill man, what are you doing fuhh you mean!
Me: Plays video
PC: spontaneous combustion....
RIP PC... ;-)
monitor*
wait
i mean i can play this video in 8k no problem. But does it even matter since my monitor is 1080p XDD
Not in tears of pixel, but in terms of bandwidth. The additional bandwidth improves YT quality drastically. That’s why the 4k stream looks much better than the 1080 stream, too.
Next time: Filming in twice the resolution of the Hubble space telescope.
That should easy… Hubble likely achieves the high resolutions by shifting the sensor… The CCDs have only 640,000 pixels and Hubble has four of thouse. You could do that with any sensor, given that you have the time, setup and software… and most importantly… the lens. NERD OUT!!!!!!!
@@MediaDivision Given the irregular shapes of some of the "Deep Field" images (amazing stuff), it's likely there's a fair bit of multiple image stitching. The "Ultra Deep Field" image also required eleven days of exposure. Slow movie. Someone at NASA was counting every damn photon. Shifting the sensors would be easy for them - super nerds - but it would be a whole lot simpler just to point the whole thing. You don't have to think about getting near the edges of the lens coverage and worrying about image quality.
30 years later my AR eyeglasses will be rendering this perfectly
Only if you download the original Footage and keep it till then… good luck ;-)
UA-cam is the only place people can find true 4K content and beyond, we hardly have enough native 4k content that isn't upscaled on the market and tv manufactures are already pushing for 8k.
It is a process. Viewer and viewer productions are 1080p today
The quality of the content is remarkably awesome. 20 minutes of pure learning experience. I'm a novice photographer and this video has inspired me to get into videography. Subscribed and sharing this video with my fellow film makers. Much love from 🇸🇦 🇵🇰
Very glad you enjoy Taha.... I think we improved a lot with our newer episodes. Check them out. Thanks a lot for sharing!
I think that there is at least one obvious reason to use large format in cinematography besides "coolness" and rareness. I also think Scorsese uses large format mostly for that. The real reason is that large format gives you much more possibilities to shoot wide scenes with specific lens in situations when it's easier to use larger format. Real shooting, especially locations don't give you ideal conditions for shot that you imagined in your head. For example if you don't want to use very wide lenses and you need to get more information (set, actors) in shot. Useful for narrow locations like in Space Odyssey (space ships), hateful 8 (house in woods multiple actors in set), batman last knight (scene in an airplane). Or if you want to show largeness of the scene like Dunkirk. I don't see those things are not achievable with super 35 but those directors can afford to use this technology and they use it. Even that large format for most people doesn't really make huge difference in the feel of the movie.
Thanks for your input Dima! I use medium format with focal reducers, and what you are talking about is solely a lens problem. I have much wider lenses that are distortion free for s35 and FF then I have for medium format. The perspective is up to the distance and that is not altered by the format.
@@MediaDivision ua-cam.com/video/lC4eGpfhpm8/v-deo.html
This will be one of those videos that we will revisit in the future and laugh about the 60 hours rendering time.
I am sure you are right.... and I hope so. The fate of the explorer
Threadripper will probs play it back in real time.... Add a 2080ti or Vega 7 for compute flex
Quantum computer/GPU, hopefully UA-cam still exist
One the best video on UA-cam ! Amazing this will go viral
Thanks a lot! I wish... spread the word ;-)
Hi Media Division, I´m a VFX Artist and my answer to you about why the large formats are important is; the more detail you have on one shot the easier it is to us make compositing of visual effects on the scene. I´ve worked with 1080p - 2k - 4k - 6k, and yes 6k is very big and slows your work down but for tracking shots is amazing, you can track a shot in 6k in the first or second time. In 1080p for example is much more difficult to do that. I speak from experience. :)
Hi Joao, We work and do FX with 4K, 6K, 8k all the time… of course higher resolutions benefit that work… this video was edited and uploaded in 8K.
The point of this video is a bit to show that large format are not necessarily deliver higher resolution. Under ideal lighting conditions and with longer exposures (both easy to do with many FX shots) large formats deliver, but used in anything like normal lighting, the lack of light will bring a result that is very similar to s35… sometimes even indistinguishable… thats why I bring up the thermic hypothesis. The scenes I show here are all non VFX shots
@@MediaDivision oh I see... I totally missed the point of your question!... Sorry
This whole production is like... Woah.
Thanks man… I think our newer ones are much much better… try those for a Woah ;-)
I am N o Professional cinematographer but I shot on full frame over super 35 because of the options in term of fast aperture lenses, i imagine that directors who shot on large format are doing a similar but different thing, they are choosing large format because they can get hold of medium/large format glass at F2.8 or below, stuff us mortals can't get hold of and would be almost impossible to produce for a smaller formats like s35.
?!? Full frame doesn't have generally faster lenses? I have medium format glass up to f1.9 and I boost it to Full Format… you can get hold of it easily as mortal… we made a whole episode about the subject ua-cam.com/video/ntohzgTm5Lo/v-deo.html
Of course, you can replicate the exact same look even with a micro four third, given you find fast enough glas… but, too shallow depth of filed is not something you want in film anyway.
ya most films shoot between f2.8 -f5.6 i would say for most shots. Great episode BTW, just waiting for you to blow up
@@MediaDivision This reply is probably too late but my answer is that the convince and reliability of a native lens may appeal to people in the industry as aposted to adapting lenses the get the correct fit.(although i am shore i am probably wrong). the second point about the fast aperture medium format lenses, i was thinking of cinema style lens, closer to the lecia summicron style. (i actually have a mamiya 645 afd ii which i use the 80mm f1.9 for stills( i bought it after i watched your video when i first ran into your channel)). in summary i am probably wrong and poorly communicated my thoughts. P.S. CineBlogs i hope this is a satisfying 'blow up' for you. P.P.S. Media division Thanks for tanking the time to get involved with your audience.
@@nicholasboule5134 I don't want to "blow up"… 😜😂😜
@@necron1050 Always always… thanks for your input!
Just when I thought 8K for UA-cam was insane, here you are, rendering a Dope 16K video sample like it's Sunday Brunch..😅
hahahahha… cheers man! So funny
The video quality and editing effort are calling for the future.
Future..... future......are you there Future ?
I love playing your videos while I edit videos. It's a great combo.
hahaha..... I hope it is not too distracting. I usually have talk shows in the background. Addicted to white noise. Thanks for watching man!
@@MediaDivision I either have youtube videos playing or epic trance fresh out of Eastern Europe playing. The usual.
yeah.... you are an addict, too ;-) Hope we will get better one day
Hello, a quick disclaimer first, I'm not an expert on this topic, I just find this fascinating. I've read some of your comments, and I have to point out that, it's a misconception that perspective is only affected by the distance between object and camera. The lens, in fact, can affect perspective, that is, how big an object in the background looks compared to another in the foreground. This is called 'image size ratio'. For a normal lens, this number is bigger than one, making distant object smaller(entocentric perspective). Some exotic lens design can make this number approach, even become smaller than one, they are called telecentric and hypercentric perspective.
Ben from applied science has a great video on this topic, which can be found here:
Hypercentric optics: A camera lens that can see behind objects
ua-cam.com/video/iJ4yL6kaV1A/v-deo.html
And more in-depth information can be found in his video's description.
Then is something I cannot say for sure. Image size ratio can be affected by magnification ratio and pupil magnification ratio(how big exit pupil is compared to entrance pupil), how? I don't know. To what extent, I don't know. My guess is, real lenses lie somewhere in between entocentric and telecentric, different lens design may thus create different perspective. (One way to understand this is that, when one says perspective is determined by the distance between object and camera, what he really means is the distance between object and an imaginary point determined by the lens design. Problem is, that point can be outside of the lens, for a telecentric lens, that point is at infinity, for a hypercentric lens, that point is somewhere behind the further object when viewed from the camera.) I may be entirely wrong thought.
How have you only got 27k subs!?! Your videos are amazing man! I look forward to each video you release. Thanks for the amazing content :)
Thanks Kagan... tell me if you find out ;-) spread the word so we can continue to do these
This channel is so good man
Thanks man... very kind of you... spread the word 😉
Challenge for LinusTechTips!
Filming with 16k ? sure... throw that gauntlet in their face, I am up for a good duel.
@@MediaDivision Oh God am so happy UA-cam 16K Videos is coming soon, Thank you so much @Media Division!
you have a good life!
@@FantasyNero Is it?`Never heard of that
@@MediaDivision Wait a little and update is coming soon when UA-cam 16K reveal, upload 16k and you will get native quality, by the way you made amazing video, thank you so much!
God bless you!
@@FantasyNero You can get native quality right now by downloading the file we provided………… if you drive it with 4x 8K monitors you could even see it. Thanks man
This channel is amazing and has the most informative explanations. The video production is great too and for free! I’m deep in the rabbit hole thanks to this channel.
Glad we could do that for you.... the interesting thing will be to find how deep that rabbit hole is, we haven't touched ground.
@@MediaDivision well I’m along for the ride.
Nice to have you with us
WOW.. The slow zoom in just made my brain fall out. Superb.
Cheers man!!! Thanks for watching!
@@MediaDivision No thank you !! Love movies and how things are made didn't know you existed will now go back and watch your previous.
@@B_T_B have fun binge watching 😝
This was really interesting and quite thought provoking, thank you for sharing! :)
my pleasure Cal.... thanks for watching
The conclusion with the sensor sizes really blew my mind
I was a little scared that super speeds covering only super35 will become obsolete. Now I don't care anymore
That is not to say that larger formats have their benefits… like a wider range of adaptable lenses, potential higher resolution… but don't worry. The Super Speeds will have their place
144p yeaahhh
jokes aside, luv ur video
In the undying words of Donald Trump………………… "sad! " 😂
@@MediaDivision 😂😂
My laptop is getting real hot trying to play this video in 8K. Looks amazing! I'm still amazed with my a6100 in 4K but this is beyond nuts.
this is the ultimate laptop killer for sure... I adore your optimism to try anyway ;-) Thanks for watching Chris
Undoubtedly the best video ever for the filmmakers on UA-cam.
Thanks a lot man.... I think we improved a lot with our newer episodes. Watch our Canon FD and our f0.7 episodes... and hold on to your butt, we got something amazing in the slot for end of January
Most cinematography nerdy video ever. Congratulations.
But you won't be able to notice any difference whatsoever between imax and 35mm in a digital scan (blueray or anything else). You have to see it in film. Thats when I think its very noticeable.
Thanks Antonio... that is what I'm going for ;-)
That sound a bit like it's something ones brain generates... a visual placebo? With 8K scans there should be virtually no difference and we must take in account, that some 66mm and IMAX productions will have a digital intermediate (not Dunkirk though)
@@MediaDivision i dont think its the frame size rather the screen size that blew me away when watching imax footage in the theater, def not the same effect when watching at home or on a computer screen. So i would say watching a super35mm image at the same size on an Imax screen would feel the same and probably no perceivable difference in the theater
@@nicholasboule5134 can't argue with that ;-)
@@nicholasboule5134 You would see an enormous difference between S35 and 15/70 on an IMAX screen. It would be shockingly different to even an inexperienced viewer. In fact, we can see IMAX intercut with S35 or 3/65 blowups all the time (Dunkirk/Dark Knight/DK Rises/Ghost Protocol are great examples of this), and the differences between the larger format scenes are indeed shocking.
On a normal-sized screen, well the results would be less impressive, but the color would be better, grain much tighter, and the picture much brighter.
Has anyone ever shot 135 film vs 120 or large format film? You simply can't blowup 135 to the same size as larger formats...that's why the larger formats were used for things like billboard advertisements, but even magazine sizes will clearly illustrate the difference in quality.
Now i just have to wait for my internet service provider to catch up with download speeds that allow 8k playback. but this is epic even in 1080 ;)
Cheers mate… get 100mbit and you are golden ;-)
This is really good content for filmmakers. So interesting! Thank you
Totally my pleasure! Thanks for hanging
Interesting! One argument for a larger sensor is that light cannot be focused down to an infinitely small spot. Having a bigger sensor allows for a better resolution, limited by the wave nature of light.
Yes... the Nyquist limit. Additionally refraction kicks in later, but 1 inch 8K sensors and 12K Ursas show that we haven't hit that limit and that it will not be relevant for conventional filmmaking.
Thanks to the UA-cam Algorithm that I stumbled upon this video. It's always great to find people like you who go out of their way to experiment with things. Great Production btw.
Thanks Tusher... glad you enjoy. Don't forget to watch our newer episodes... I think we improved a lot.
"5 second ProRes4444 16K sample with an eye-watering 15GB"...hm.....90 minute film is approximately 16.2 TB
.
Just released 16TB hdd X-)
... and 1350 days off render time on my computer...... you do it ;-)
@@MediaDivision I think the movie is going to be a bit delayed 🤔
@@RubenKelevra Nope...Film production opts the way of simultaneous rendering of clips on multiple high performance servers across the planet! All of the edited clips just takes around a week or less to render!🤘 But just the editing and post production VFX work takes time...
like always it's awesoooome...you are the best,genius...you must work for big big holly wood companies
hahahaha… thanks man… if you meet one of those, tell them - I could use some jobs from those
@@MediaDivision hahaha,no i don't know them LOL... i'm working for a small film production in turkey...i wish U the best man
@@manibamiri Thanks mate!!!
Whaaw budy ..if i see your notification pop up ...its simple..
I watch it first !
And again glad i did !!
Master in cinematics 👌👌
Thanks a lot Metalman!! Very happy you liked it!
Completely mind blown. Thanks for braking my brain for a day.
Always a pleasure. Thanks man!
As a projectionist I can tell you that large format prints are not only brighter than 35mm, they are much more steady and look cleaner because of the lower magnification needed. Dust and scratches almost disappear and the image doesn't wobble and dance. 35mm blowups to 70mm don't look quite as good, but have some of the advenatges of large format.
Interesting... these are all purely mechanical aspects that are not intrinsic to the large format as a acquisition format and don't apply to digital. The reduced jitter alone will cause a sharper appearance in an analog projection way surpassing the gain in resolution of the negative.
Him : we uploaded this in 8k so you can have a taste of what it’s like
Me : watches it in 240p on phone
better than 120p
@@MediaDivision Dang Right
I saw Dunkirk on a 5 story iMax screen in Manhattan. I though the difference between the iMax70mm scenes and the 65mm scenes were very apparent and not just because of the aspect ratio change. The iMax was so much better that I originally thought that the 65mm scenes must have been 35mm because they looked so much less detailed than the iMax footage. I was surprised to find out later that they were shot on 65mm because the iMax footage looked so much better than the 65. Maybe you have to see it projected on a giant screen like this to really appreciate the improvement of imax70mm over 65mm, but there is definitely a difference. I wish he would have shot the whole movie in iMax70mm. Regardless, cool video experiment you did here.
My computer can't even handle this 8K video
The oversampling to 4K already shows you some of the benefits… the crop in during the zoom shows how much information is in there even on low resolutions
You know it's going to be an amazing video when the projector is being used as a prop! Great work, beautiful shots as always. Your content never disappoints.
Thanks a lot Mohammed.... really appreciate your kindness
Amazing video!!!!!!!!!!! Thanks for sharing your knowledge. When you zoomed in that was crazy....
Thanks Reuben… very glad you feel educated and entertained!!