full frame camera?!?!

I would love blackmagic to make a full frame camera next. The sony venice is so beautiful!

I’d like people to stop referring to it as full frame. That’s the still photography term. In cinema it’s VistaVision. And, we are talking about cinema cameras here.

I’d love to see Blackmagic Design create a 65mm VistaVision equivalent sensor. That would be amazing. With that I would love to try out the same lenses as they used on Lawrence of Arabia with the camera: Super Panavision 70 Lenses!

This is how Sony calls it https://pro.sony/ue_US/products/digital-cinema-cameras/venice

Full Frame Digital Cinematography Camera

It sensor is 36x24 mm, it can shoot 36x24 mm, so it looks pretty full frame to me.
And you know straight away what kind of lenses you need to make use of the whole sensor, ...Full frame lenses. And since it also has an e-mount you can always find an adapter to put a full frame lens from almost every manufacurer on it. As long as it is full frame.

This is Vista Vision

This is how Sony calls it https://pro.sony/ue_US/products/digital-cinema-cameras/venice

Full Frame Digital Cinematography Camera

It sensor is 36x24 mm, it can shoot 36x24 mm, so it looks pretty full frame to me.

It's a marketing phrase, like crop factors, created for so that stills photographers, mostly amateurs to understand why their APS lenses wouldn't work on a 135 format camera.

Let me ask you this then, if your precious full frame camera shoots 36mm x 24mm, what ASPECT ratio films would I have seen lately that have this aspect ratio ?

Because no movies or TV I know shoot that aspect ratio. That's because it doesn't exist as a movie making format. Which again, shows that it's pretty ignorant to keep calling it "full frame"

Fool frame more like.

FYI in 1:85 it's 36.0 mm x 19.4 mm
or in 1:2.40 it's 35.9 mm x 15.0 mm

What you call full frame should be called 135 if it's referring to stills or vistavision if it's movies.

Vistavision's aspect ratio by the way is 1.66 which at least has some history as an aspect ratio and is still a common european theatrical aspect ratio....not that many films were shot actual Vistavision. Mostly it was used as a VFX format.

Sony are buying into the same mistakes.

Full frame (which is really correctly called 135) doesn't exist as a format in cinema or TV and has no history in movie making.

It's closest relative is Vistavision.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/135_film

"The term 135 format usually refers to a 36×24 mm film format, commonly known as 35 mm format. The 36×24 mm format is common to digital image sensors, where it is typically referred to as full frame format."

JB

This is how Sony calls it https://pro.sony/ue_US/products/digital-cinema-cameras/venice

Full Frame Digital Cinematography Camera

It sensor is 36x24 mm, it can shoot 36x24 mm, so it looks pretty full frame to me.

Let me ask you this then, if your precious full frame camera shoots 36mm x 24mm, what ASPECT ratio films would I have seen lately that have this aspect ratio ?

JB

For some kind of reason people shoot anamorphic

"Anamorphic format is the cinematography technique of shooting a widescreen picture on standard 35 mm film or other visual recording media with a non-widescreen native aspect ratio. It also refers to the projection format in which a distorted image is "stretched" by an anamorphic projection lens to recreate the original aspect ratio on the viewing screen. (It should not be confused with anamorphic widescreen, a different video encoding concept that uses similar principles but different means.) The word anamorphic and its derivatives stem from the Greek words meaning "formed again". As a camera format, anamorphic format is losing popularity in comparison to "flat" (or "spherical") formats such as Super 35 mm film shot using spherical lenses; however, because most film movie projectors use anamorphic projection format, spherical format negatives are commonly converted into anamorphic prints for projection.

In the years since digital cinema cameras and projectors have become commonplace, anamorphic has experienced a considerable resurgence of popularity, due in large part to the higher base ISO sensitivity of digital sensors, which facilitates shooting at smaller apertures."

Marketing is knowing what the market wants and a big piece of the high end market want Anamorphic.
It seems that Sony's marketing department (the people who figure out what sells) does a pretty good job. So they created a camera that can shoot multiple formats:

X-OCN ST/LT/XT:
6K 3:2(6048 x 4032)*: 23.98p, 24p,
6K 2.39:1 (6048 x 2530)*: 23.98p, 24p, 25p, 29.97p
6K 1.85:1 (6048 x 3270)*: 23.98p, 24p, 25p, 29.97p
6K 17:9 (6048 x 3190)*: 23.98p, 24p, 25p, 29.97p
5.7K 16:9 (5672 x 3190)*: 23.98p, 25p, 29.97p
4K 6:5(4096x3432)*:23.98p, 24p, 25p, 29.97p
4K 4:3(4096x3024) :23.98p, 24p, 25p*, 29.97p*
4K 17:9 (4096 x 2160): 23.98p, 24p, 25p, 29.97p, 50p, 59.94p
3.8K 16:9 (3840 x 2160): 23.98p, 24p, 25p, 29.97p, 50p, 59.94p

An other small German camera manufacturer also uses a similar aspect ratio for their sensors and are pretty succesfull with it.

S16 HD: 1920 x 1080
HD: 1920 x 1080
2K: 2048 x 1152
3.2K: 3200 x 1800
4K UHD: 3840 x 2160
4:3 2.8K: 2944 x 2160
2.39:1 2K Ana.: 2048 x 858
HD Ana.: 1920 x 1080
ARRIRAW 16:9 2.8K: 2880 x 1620
Open Gate 3.4K: 3424 x 2202

When 90+% of your prospects/clients calls something Full Frame, for clarity it might be smart to call it full frame, so your market knows what you mean(or just close the marketing department and call it 135).

Lots of information on the Wikipedia VistaVision entry. The 1.66x aspect ratio John mentions was one of three ratios that could be used for VistaVision projection, not capture, the other ratios were 1.85 and 2x. The actual image capture ratio for film as described previously is about 1.97x (36mm x 18.3mm).

So the larger physical size of full 8-perf is not relevant to the actual area of exposed film in the original cinema application of VistaVision.

The story is different now because RED’s implementation of their largest digital sensor’s active area that is described as VistaVision is larger than film VistaVision.

The ‘larger than full frame’ language as RED describes the Weapon Monstro 8K VistaVision (40.96x21.60mm 8192x4320 photosites) is much larger than physical length of full 8-perf film as illustrated in the previous schematic.

Here’s a handy reference of digital sensor sizes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_l ... prov=sfti1

Disclaimer
The statements I’m making here are based on Wikipedia as I certainly don’t have or want any first-hand knowledge of VistaVision.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For some kind of reason people shoot anamorphic

What is the relevance to “full frame” ?

I think you’re confused and you just made my point better than I could in explaining it.

Anamorphic as most people understand it is typically a 2x squeeze projecting around 18.6mm x 21.95mm, which has nothing at all to do with the label “full frame”

Anamorphic can fit into the 135 format sure. But they aren’t the same if that’s what you’re thinking ?

I’m excited that cameras are moving into larger sensor sizes. The Venice is exciting because it can cover a lot of different and we’ll establish cinema and TV conventions because it has a 135 format sensor.

Again, please tell me what major films that I would have seen in a cinema or on TV are shot using the 135 format ? The answer I already know is almost none.

That doesn’t discount or hurt Sony’s camera exciting new camera. We just need to understand what these labels actually mean. Because names are important.

Are you a camera operator or a cinematographer? Are you a shooter or are you a DP ?

*there are some vintage large format anamorphic systems but there’s literally a small handful
Of those right now (panavision) but most of what exists and is being developed has a 1.5x or 1.3x or 1.25x squeeze and is aimed at larger formats than vistavision 135 (Think hateful 8). https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/ ... ved-852586

Marketing is knowing what the market wants and a big piece of the high end market want Anamorphic.
It seems that Sony's marketing department (the people who figure out what sells) does a pretty good job. So they created a camera that can shoot multiple formats:

Being an image maker should mean that you should have your own understanding of the equipment you use and an ability to critically cut through marketing speak. The next step for me is to then actually shoot with it and see for myself if what I’m being told correlates to what I can do.

Sony hardly have a great track record of success in high end cinema. F65, F35 are respected but not widely adopted. F55 hung in there mostly because of Netflix and never RED DPs.

An other small German camera manufacturer also uses a similar aspect ratio for their sensors and are pretty succesfull with it.

But they don’t call it full frame camera. That’s my point.

It’s called and Alexa LF for Large Format

When 90+% of your prospects/clients calls something Full Frame, for clarity it might be smart to call it full frame, so your market knows what you mean(or just close the marketing department and call it 135).

It’s not that hard. Like when someone at a party mis-hears your name you can politely correct them. It’s never been a problem in the last 100 years of cinema. It’s only since the arrival of the 5D that people started getting confused.

Isn’t it your job as an image maker to help educate people, including your clients ? I find when I bring my producers and directors along in these kinds of discussions to help them better understand they feel more empowered about their own work and they will respect your opinions in other areas even more.

JB

My speculation is that you might see a Full Frame Pocket 4 with an EF mount and PL mount at NAB. It's kinda BMD's playbook. They release a camera, and then release alternate versions of the same camera the year after. They did it with the original Cine camera to the Production camera, and the PL mount afterwards. They did it with the Ursa Mini. I don't think you'll see much different though. Just a new mount.

Chris, now that would be intriguing! I’d better hold off on purchasing that Fujinon MK 18-35mm zoom until after NAB then because that zoom only covers up to Super 35.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

When sony calls their new Venice Camera Full Frame because it has a 36x24 mm sensor and Sigma calls their cine lenses FF(full frame) High Speed Prime Line, because they cover the 43.3 mm image circle it makes a lot of sense to call them Full Frame. By calling them Full Frame 90% of the people know what they mean or have a good idea what they mean. Vista Vision is for the 9.9% and 135 is for the remaining 0.1%.

ARRI LF isn't full frame it's larger 36.70 x 25.54 mm and ⌀ 44.71 mm and to use the full sensor you need a bigger then full frame lens.

Since the 5D(as mentioned) there is a lot of overlap between the stills and moving pictures and good marketing departments make use of that(their only goal is to sell as many camera's and/or lenses as possible).

Same is true to a certain extend for APS-C vs. super 35 and probably some other formats.

BMD markets the UMP G2 as a 25.34mm x 14.25mm (Super35) sensor where Super 35 is 24.89 mm × 18.66 mm, RED calls the Monstro Vista Vision etc...

Long story short, when you call something full frame most people in the industy know what you mean, which is not the case with Vista Vison, 135, etc...

Chris, now that would be intriguing! I’d better hold off on purchasing that Fujinon MK 18-35mm zoom until after NAB then because that zoom only covers up to Super 35.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

MK 18-55 24.84mm x 13.97mm (φ28.5mm).

True, Misha. Hopefully good enough for my purposes where I’d mount the FUJINON MK mFT on the BMPCC4K and add the SLR Magic 1.33x-65 Anamorphot up front recording squeezed to UHD, not 4K DCI. No vignette. If I was recording squeezed 4K DCI, there might be a small corner vignette.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Long story short, when you call something full frame most people in the industy know what you mean, which is not the case with Vista Vison, 135, etc...

Not true, as John said Full Frame is a marketing term invented by Canon and Nikon to describe difference between 135mm Film SLRs and APS-C size sensor used on the first DSLRs. I have more than 30-years experience in the “industry”, shooting from 8x10 to S16mm film cameras, both still and cinema/motion picture. The term Full Frame means nothing, it is ambiguous, full frame what, 135, 70mm, Cine 35mm, etc. all of which have different aspect ratio gate sizes, and the term Full Frame was never used, until digital mass market APS-C cameras came out, and the promoters of these new cameras used the term to describe the frame size/aspect ratio of a135mm film still photography camera, which was then called a 135 or more commonly, a 35mm Camera — never a full frame camera.
Cheers

Long story short, when you call something full frame most people in the industy know what you mean, which is not the case with Vista Vison, 135, etc...

You're making up statistics now to make a case for a phrase that many on this thread DO in fact understand.

No matter if people know it or not, it's not really the "right" name for something. Like I said, I tend to think it's better to educate those that don't know.

Carry on.

JB

I have been shooting 35mm film on a stills camera for nearly 40 years.

That particular film stock has always (to me) been known as Super35 (in a film camera moving vertically) or 135 (in a stills camera moving horizontally). The term "full frame" is only a recent term (10 years?) that, as John and many others have illustrated, was developed by marketing and not moving image industry professionals.

Ironically, the moving images captured on a Canon 5D don't use "full frame" anyway, but an oversampled 16:9 crop of the sensor.

As a moving image professional, it is certainly important to understand what "full frame" means - it's now part of the language - but it's actually more important to understand the other aspect ratios and formats that exist for cinema. If you are to consider yourself a moving image professional, then you need to educate yourself as one.

The same market speak creeps into every professional industry that crosses over into consumer land. That doesn't mean we drop industry standard terms and language in favour of marketing. It's even more reason to educate people - wishing to be, or working as, professionals - on the correct terms.

So, yes, it's no secret; "Full Frame" = 135. Every professional I work with knows that. You can chose to ignore that, or even argue it's not important to know it. Sure, do what you want. But in my opinion, and many professionals share this opinion, it's simply ignorance to argue against to use of correct technical terminology (in any industry) in favour of marketing speak.

And how should daylight loading spool users call it 235 or 435 or Orwo Schnell-Lade Kassette users, SL12?.

Venice doesn't use film, it uses the same size digital sensor as a full frame stills camera.
Digital camera manufactures don't use terms like 135 any more(maybe in some side note).

Languages change over time...

Digital camera manufactures don't use terms like 135 any more(maybe in some side note).

But those of us that know better use them. And you should aspire to as well, rather than just shrug your shoulders because your clients ask you for something by calling it the wrong name.

Have some professional respect for yourself.

JB

And how should daylight loading spool users call it...

This analogy doesn't make much sense. "Daylight loading spool" means film stock on a spool. What's that got to do with aspect ratio or film gate dimensions? Or even film sizes? And further more, to do with "full frame" terminology.

... or Orwo Schnell-Lade Kassette users, SL12?.

An obsolete consumer product that was never really popular, and certainly never adopted professionally, that has the ability to shoot with different gate sizes. What's that got to do with "full frame" terminology? If anything, if you used "full frame" in this context it would probably lead to more confusion.

Venice doesn't use film, it uses the same size digital sensor as a full frame stills camera.
Digital camera manufactures don't use terms like 135 any more (maybe in some side note).

Sony is appealing to a new generation of filmmakers born from the DSLR revolution by using "full frame." Good on them. I hope they sell more cameras because of it. I really do. But the term "full frame" is ambiguous. If it wasn't, why is there so much confusion around the terminology? 135 is not ambiguous. It is still very much alive and used professionally, whether or not you believe it.

Languages change over time...

Yes I agree. But it doesn't vanish, it expands and adopts.

Just because something new comes along, doesn't mean everything before it is irrelevant. Especially when the language is still alive - integrated, established and understood by living practitioners.

The ultimate aim of technical communication is to eradicate ambiguity - to have a clear, unambiguous lexicon. I know what "full frame" means. I'd be stupid not to, or many of the other consumer language that enters my profession, and may or may not get adopted. I do find the 135 relative AOV comparison useful because I come from a 135 stills background. But on the other hand, I'd be stupid not to educate myself on the historic and enduring language that is still in practise today, which is more relevant now than ever before. Especially if I want to have to have a deep technical conversation with a director of photography.

Misha, use any language you want. With hand on heart honesty, I don't actually care. But to argue that technical terminology in no longer relevant for whatever reason (you don't like it, you don't use it, you don't care, don't want it, etc) is simply ignorant.

Unreal. Do you guys ever give up? You know what the guy means, and it's got nothing to do with medium format 65mm vista. Instead you have turned the thread around into a negative "semantics" debate, not about the subject of ones desire for a full (35mm in context) frame camera of the OP. Have some respect.

Unreal. Do you guys ever give up? You know what the guy means, and it's got nothing to do with medium format 65mm vista. Instead you have turned the thread around into a negative "semantics" debate, not about the subject of ones desire for a full (35mm in context) frame camera of the OP. Have some respect.

Nothing wrong with a strong discussion Wayne, don't worry we won't start a war or something (like some respectfull presidents did, where the orange president didn't). We are not victims of any kind and just change arguments, facts and opinions in a stronger matter then some are used to. I haven't noticed any kind of disrespect in the discussion/debat.

Unreal. Do you guys ever give up? You know what the guy means, and it's got nothing to do with medium format 65mm vista. Instead you have turned the thread around into a negative "semantics" debate, not about the subject of ones desire for a full (35mm in context) frame camera of the OP. Have some respect.

Nothing wrong with a strong discussion Wayne, don't worry we won't start a war or something (like some respectfull presidents did, where the orange president didn't). We are not victims of any kind and just change arguments, facts and opinions in a stronger matter then some are used to. I haven't noticed any kind of disrespect in the discussion/debat.

I agree Misha. I've not seen this discussion descend into personal attacks or derogatory remarks.

In the past, this would have been a conversation between friends/colleagues/acquaintances in a cafe or pub over coffee or beers. These days forums like this provide a platform for robust discussion, a sharing of opinions, and we can be anywhere on the planet! The wonders of technology.

Maybe we'll continue this discussion in person one day. But regardless, as long as the robust discourse is passionate but always remains respectful, I'll happily turn up and read and/or engage in the discussion.

Talking about full frame and Venice, have a look at this.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/03/sony-fe-135mm-f1-8-gm-early-mtf-results/

Sony is not only making good sensors/camera's, the lenses are also pretty good(at least the still ones).

I haven't use Venice but did have a little play with it at the Camerimage trade expo. It does look like Sony has got a lot of things right with this camera. And they do produce excellent sensors, no doubt.

Buying Konica Minolta was a smart strategic move on their part. Rather than relying so much on partnerships - such as Zeiss - they now produce their own brand lenses, and some are superb. I own the CineAlta primes (six lens set, gen 2) and really enjoy the opportunity to use them when a job allows.

I really wish they'd produce their S35 servo zoom (18-110/4) for other mounts, but alas, that's part of the competitive appeal of their smaller shoulder style cine cameras - FS5 and FS7.

Getting back to the thread, I'm perfectly happy if BMD continue producing cameras compatible with S16 and S35 lenses. There's a great selection of lenses that have been produced for those formats - vintage and modern - and a decent length zoom can be relatively small and light - especially for S16. I love my URSA Broadcast. It really is the modern imagining of the S16 camera.

I'd love to see them produce a S35 compatible camera with a short flange mount. Maybe a BMD mount?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

IMHO, what they finally did right (apart from beautiful colors) with the Venice is enough OLPF, all earlier Sony cameras suffered from weak anti-aliasing.

Well, sorry, some things are intentionally contributory, even if side topics, and some things are intentionally disruptive, like turning a thread into a semantical debate about sensor format description in the first replies, when you know what was meant, and by convention you know what was meant. This happens a lot. The trunk must grow for the branches to grow out. Side verting the topic into an uneeded semantic debate off the bat, doesn't let the original subject trunk flourish, ri produce many other side topics over the time. It's like, virtually every time I start a thread to ask a specific straight forward question, I will get do badders come in (sane people virtually every time) to answer wgat is obviously another question which dissuades others from producing follow up posts to answer the actual question, killing the thread dead quickly).

Now, a reply to a direct actual mistake, not a semantic of matter of context people should understand, or a contributory side track that doesn't nock/disrupt the subject, or a few other things is OK. It allows the trunk or branches to grow and be corrected. A "1 inch ff35mm sensor", would be an actual mistake. Saying, "so you mean a 35mm stills format sebsir, or a vista?", is supportive. Sure enough, the trunk or a branch might be diseased in actual fact, and not merely using a valid description both the write and reader understand, and need to be healed.

IMHO, what they finally did right (apart from beautiful colors) with the Venice is enough OLPF, all earlier Sony cameras suffered from weak anti-aliasing.

And were using rotated pixels and odd color filter patterns, to claim high resolution, through what, to me, must have been pixel slitting and rejoining to get extra pixels

Frank, I agree with you (but not to exclusion of micro and 8k or 6k). Sony has such sensors, and one of BM's sensor suppliers.

My speculation is that you might see a Full Frame Pocket 4 with an EF mount and PL mount at NAB. It's kinda BMD's playbook. They release a camera, and then release alternate versions of the same camera the year after. They did it with the original Cine camera to the Production camera, and the PL mount afterwards. They did it with the Ursa Mini. I don't think you'll see much different though. Just a new mount.

With BMD following up the pocket 4K with a pocket 6K, can we now expect a "full frame" (Large Format/ Vista Vision/ whatever name you assign to that) Ursa Mini Pro releasing at NAB? 8K perhaps?

BM has the ability to order a Samsung 16stop+ part. Samsung has been going at Sony sensor dominance. Sony has yet to unshackled it's mobile phone division, while Samsung has been using it's own, and it's disinvestment of pro cameras, as a platform to justify the development of it's sensor technology.

They also have a larger format liquid lens system. Perfect for a very small pocket, and they have their unreleased mirrorless design collecting dust, with ability to cofab on even an better silicon process. Probably perfect for a next generation raw Braw pocket or micron, or nano (the seller can stick in a lot of different places, and uses as an action, crash, fov, B, corporate security, cam, that can be sold in millions, using Braw over networks and wirelessly). Reality is our there.


(Re-edit: PS, they already have a 16 stop 108mp close to 12k mobile phone sensor. So, I expect they could do a fullframe of sufficient quality).

I think it should have at least 10K to make full use of the resolution of 8K displays.

Oh, and BM should acquire some shares of leading manufacturers of storage devices

I think it should have at least 10K to make full use of the resolution of 8K displays.

Oh, and BM should acquire some shares of leading manufacturers of storage devices

Wonder what 10K BRAW at 3:1 would come out to, might be even more than CFExpress can handle

No need for 8k or 10k - the 24mp sensor Panasonic and Sony 'seem' to share' for the A7III and S1/S1H could go in the P6k......

a "full frame" (Large Format/ Vista Vision/ whatever name you assign to that)

Wow are people ever lost on this.

Micro 4/3, super 16mm, 8mm, etc. are ALL "full frame" - they just have different sized frames - so that phrase is completely meaningless.

Bear in mind that even in the still photography world, the 135 format that is now often misleadingly marketed as the "full frame" format was the original "crop" format of the film photography world, before the invention of digital cameras - it was considered too small to give images of acceptable professional quality by the pros who were all shooting larger formats at the time.

Large format commonly starts at a frame size several inches wide and tall - such as view cameras, ex. 4" x 5" sheets of film which are about 3.5 times the width of a 135 format sensor. I am not aware of ANY cameras with sensors that large which can handle motion work just yet? The 135 format (stills) or the equivalent VistaVision format (cinema) are about the largest you can get and still be considered a *small* format in the still photography world. Anything larger than 135 is considered medium format, up until some poorly-defined threshold at which it becomes large format.


Sorry, but I get sick of the whole "full frame" thing too. Anyone using that term to describe a camera sensor (still or motion) should be banished.

It is actually even worse than all the cameras and TVs which are described as being 4K when they can only shoot/display UltraHD, and the fact that even a camera I have refers to UltraHD as being "4K" in its menus (which I just about cringe at every time I look at it).

Regarding the comments about using a 10K sensor for delivery of 8K video, even 11K is insufficient to derive the best debayer Colour in 8K. Anyone shooting with a sensor above 8K is not going to find 12K prohibitive if the camera and post can manage it.

However that’s such a small sliver of the population of shooters, I wonder if BMD would decline to be in the bleeding edge of that movement as their cinema cameras could require price points above $10K. And if we’re still debating “why bother” it’s not likely going to happen next year.

Something like that might need a top-of-the-line newer Mac Pro and that will need to be paired with a pretty hefty RAID. Starting to feel like the choice is a new camera and computer or a new car!

And, if it requires medium format cinema lenses, forget about that kitchen reno. Avoiding a medium format sensor is going to mean very small photosites (like a smartphone camera) to avoid new lenses) but few lenses will resolve anywhere near 12K. That’s about 85 megapixels for a 16:9 aspect ratio and 2 micron photosites on a Super35 sensor.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

a "full frame" (Large Format/ Vista Vision/ whatever name you assign to that)

Wow are people ever lost on this.

Micro 4/3, super 16mm, 8mm, etc. are ALL "full frame" - they just have different sized frames - so that phrase is completely meaningless.

Bear in mind that even in the still photography world, the 135 format that is now often misleadingly marketed as the "full frame" format was the original "crop" format of the film photography world, before the invention of digital cameras - it was considered too small to give images of acceptable professional quality by the pros who were all shooting larger formats at the time.

Large format commonly starts at a frame size several inches wide and tall - such as view cameras, ex. 4" x 5" sheets of film which are about 3.5 times the width of a 135 format sensor. I am not aware of ANY cameras with sensors that large which can handle motion work just yet? The 135 format (stills) or the equivalent VistaVision format (cinema) are about the largest you can get and still be considered a *small* format in the still photography world. Anything larger than 135 is considered medium format, up until some poorly-defined threshold at which it becomes large format.


Sorry, but I get sick of the whole "full frame" thing too. Anyone using that term to describe a camera sensor (still or motion) should be banished.

It is actually even worse than all the cameras and TVs which are described as being 4K when they can only shoot/display UltraHD, and the fact that even a camera I have refers to UltraHD as being "4K" in its menus (which I just about cringe at every time I look at it).

Which country you from Frank? You must realise that in cinematograpy terms it is full frame compared to super 35mm, which has nothing really super about it, as it is stripped down compared to full frame. So, it's about context and understanding that. But I'm not happy about the 4k and large format usage like you either. Full frame can mean a full version of what ever frame format sizing, but at 7680, 8k is basically 7.68k and it gets worse at 16k, where it's 15.36k, nowhere near 16k, so you can't really call it approximately anymore.

Large format is no where near 135. I would like to hear arguments on the superiority of medium formats over 135 though. However I support computational imaging arrays of smaller sensors, because it gives you a full IMAX like frame, or large format, calculated imaging in a convenient to use size. I don't think many here would like to own and use a normal large format camera. Have a look at the planned Red one, it's basically a big tablet like device with dozens of sensors across the back.

Rick. They have 12k on a mobile sensor, I think 12 or 16k on a full frame is going go alright with the right pixel technology. But the practical use of 8k to the proposed 32k (note the panavision? guy pushing that is not working there anymore) is downscaling to 4k or 2k 4:4:4. Bayer has issues, that a foveon sensor solves at less data.

Sorry, but I get sick of the whole "full frame" thing too. Anyone using that term to describe a camera sensor (still or motion) should be banished.

Nice, along with me please banish Canon, Sony, Zeiss. And bring back Mamiya and Hassleblad to shoot a film.

Regarding the comments about using a 10K sensor for delivery of 8K video, even 11K is insufficient to derive the best debayer Colour in 8K. Anyone shooting with a sensor above 8K is not going to find 12K prohibitive if the camera and post can manage it.

However that’s such a small sliver of the population of shooters, I wonder if BMD would decline to be in the bleeding edge of that movement as their cinema cameras could require price points above $10K. And if we’re still debating “why bother” it’s not likely going to happen next year.

Something like that might need a top-of-the-line newer Mac Pro and that will need to be paired with a pretty hefty RAID. Starting to feel like the choice is a new camera and computer or a new car!

And, if it requires medium format cinema lenses, forget about that kitchen reno. Avoiding a medium format sensor is going to mean very small photosites (like a smartphone camera) to avoid new lenses) but few lenses will resolve anywhere near 12K. That’s about 85 megapixels for a 16:9 aspect ratio and 2 micron photosites on a Super35 sensor.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Rick, I understand your point. But no one is talking about "K". At this point of time, it's only about "full frame". Arri LF is 4K, when it's RAW, it's enough. And BRAW is quite capable as a compressed RAW codec. Almost as good as r3d (Redcode Raw). After working with BRAW, I have a feeling that it can be even better, but Blackmagic is holding something back because of the r3d patient issue.
"Full frame" or LF or VV, whichever way you describe it, definitely has a unique look and it's becoming more and more popular. And in all likelihood it's going to be the gold standard of cinematography in near future.
That's the reason I would always long for a full frame camera from Blackmagic. The "K" in the sensor is not that important, but the "K" in the pricing would be sensible, if such a camera comes from BMD.

Krishna, it’s true the topic of the thread is about terminology not Ks, but my post was in response to post #30 and #31 as there was speculation of the Ks needed to support an 8K sensor. No worries.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’ll see if I can find other images on my computer later to upload in high resolution. However, 70mm IMAX film remains the largest “full frame” format used in filmmaking. The thing is that we have to discuss the direction of the film perforations when we’re discussing these formats. There was a major difference between vertical and horizontal film perforations for motion pictures.

Most major movies shot on 35mm ran vertically through the camera and thus was smaller in size than 135 still photography film which ran horizontally through the camera. It was mainly VistaVision that ran horizontally through a cinema camera, and it was often reserved for visual effects.

I’ll find a good article at home for everyone. However I want those who came from the still photography camera world to stop acting like Super 35mm sensor size is less than full frame. Why? Because Super 35mm has been a motion picture film standard for a very long time.

I dare you to go argue this with Martin Scorsese or Francis Ford Coppola. You’ll be sleeping with the fishes before long.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Here's another image of IMAX film from Interstellar.

IMAX Film Frame

IMG_0228.jpg (175.79 KiB) Viewed 9819 times

I'll see where I can find the article I recently read about the move towards large format cinematography.

Still, s35 is part size of 135, so it makes sense. These aren't absolute definitions (like s35 and 135 means particular frames), but relative to each other.

There's still so much ignorance about the names of formats.

Super 35 is a relatively new format. It's only been with us since the mid 80's when cinema sound transitioned to digital.

The camera negative no longer needed to protect the are of the negative that was reserved for magnetic or optical sound on the cinemap print and that imaging area was reclaimed for picture.

It had a lot of appeal for those that wanted to shoot a 2.40 aspect ratio but NOT shoot anamorphic. James Cameron is often credited as the one who popularised this format. (The Abyss, T2, True Lies) Early CG artists struggled to deal with the lens distortions of anamorphic on their 3D objects and integrating them back in along with the larger file / resolution of anamorphic, so S35 framed for 1.40 was a "cheap" way of going widescreen without the problems of anamorphic lenses.

So compared to Academy 35 it was pretty "super" because it WAS wider than what everyone was using, which ...surprise surprise.... was NOT friggin 135 full frame.

Some are so ignorant they don't even know that they don't know.

JB

And did you know what I was referring too John! I'm not getting into this little part 35mm being a bit better than smaller part 35mm (which we know already), rather than them being a lot smaller than 135. In no dimension do they measure at least 35mm, the name is a stillness like formats based on old TV camera tube sizes. At least we can all agree calling fuller frame 35mm small format is not a large (super) format. Thats just like calling 35mm cinema formats 35mm. It's 35mm film (not really) used to fit a much smaller format in.

Hmm, I just had a thought, why not approx 70mm ultra wide super wide VR film frame using super thin film to save space and weight. I had a film transport proposal which could handle film maybe even below 100 micron. That should be around the 14k+ they are looking for. Hmm, basically on my transport you should be able to record 32k uncompressed digitally, hours, on a relatively small package. Yeah, don't know that I don't know something off tangent, rather then know something significant! At least I didn't design Java, did any of you guys design Java?

Sorry, but I get sick of the whole "full frame" thing too. Anyone using that term to describe a camera sensor (still or motion) should be banished.

Even more, the requirements for resolution in print are significantly higher than for motion pictures... yet photographers who make their living selling fine art prints continue using Bayer pattern sensors and print at native resolution.

Yet here we have a large collection of people who believe that to get the best quality from a Bayer pattern sensor you have to shoot at a higher resolution than what you plan to deliver at... while people like Roger Deakins are shooting in 2K for 4K deliveries...

Yes, he's an extreme case, but he's also proof that talent and craft trump pretty much everything else.

Sorry, but I get sick of the whole "full frame" thing too. Anyone using that term to describe a camera sensor (still or motion) should be banished.

while people like Roger Deakins are shooting in 2K for 4K deliveries...

He may well be shooting 2k for other reasons but this discussion is about sensor size and not resolution .

Deakins shot ARRI LF for 1917.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Deakins shot ARRI LF for 1917.

What's your point? He shot on Alexas for Blade Runner 2049...

Deakins shot ARRI LF for 1917.

What's your point? He shot on Alexas for Blade Runner 2049...

ARRI Alexa Sensor Maximum Resolution and Size
3424 x 2202
28.25 x 18.17 mm / 1.112 x 0.715"
⌀ 33.59 mm / 1.322"

Now he found something better, the Alexa LF.
Sensor Maximum Resolution and Size
4448 x 3096
36.70 x 25.54 mm / 1.444 x 1.005"
⌀ 44.71 mm / 1.760"

Deakins shot ARRI LF for 1917.

What's your point? He shot on Alexas for Blade Runner 2049...

Now he found something better, the Alexa LF.

He and Villeneuve could have opted for an Alexa 65 for Blade Runner 2049 if they'd wanted, but chose Alexas.