The term Full Frame vs Large Format in motion pictures?

[silvan schnelli]

I am a bit conflicted regarding the Term full frame. To my knowledge full frame refers to the dimension of a 35mm film stock across the film gate, which in cinematography (motion picture) purposes was 4-perf 35mm film (or super 35). In photography however, as the film runs horizontal compared to vertical as they do in the motion pictures cameras, the image obtained on a full-frame photography camera was much larger. In photography the 35mm was in essence referring to the height, where as in motion picture it was referring to the width. However, as a response to televisions and cinemascope, Paramount Picture eventually introduced VistaVision, 8-perf 35mm films horizontal format film, to produce larger and cleaner pictures, which now had roughly the same size as full frame cameras in photography, this is as written on wikipedia known as Large format.

So my question is how come ARRI calls their camera Alexa LF where as Sony labels their Sony Venice as being full-frame?

[David Mullen ASC]

I think you're confusing Full Aperture with Full Frame. Full Aperture refers to using the maximum exposable area in any film format. Full Frame refers to the 8-perf 35mm horizontal format, which is VistaVision / Technirama in cinema terms.

"Large format" for the Alexa LF is a bit annoying since Full Frame isn't even Medium Format, let alone Large Format! IMAX is technically Medium Format!

[Robin Phillips]

What David said. 

All I can add is that "full frame" as a buzz word really look off when the 5D line gained the ability to shoot video, and suddenly "full frame" was a great selling phrase, as though you were missing out some how. Granted, it was an accurate enough way to differentiate it from the APS-C cameras (close to S35) like the 7D. But I dont think it entered the cinema lexicon till the 5D mk2 and its video mode arrived. If anyone's recollection is better by all means please correct me

But Im not sure I'll ever get over the fact that 1 "full frame" has taken hold when "vista vision" is both the historic name and sounds so much cooler and 2 that its no big deal to shoot digital vista vision but if you wanna shoot vista vision on film not only is it a major pain, but I think cost wise it shakes out to similar to shooting 65mm stock wise. 

But boy would I love to throw some supreme primes on a vista gated film camera. 

[Jon O'Brien]

I like to use the name Vista or something similar for Full frame when it's used in a filmmaking context. "Full frame" really refers to the 135 35mm film format which was a still photography format popularized by makers such as Nikon with their SLRs in the late 1960s or thereabouts, where the film went through the camera horizontally, resulting in the larger 135 format sized frame. Originally of course 35mm film was intended for motion pictures, with a vertical motion through the camera, with the same or somewhat similar frame size to what we now call S35. So "Full frame" is a much bigger frame area than 35mm movie film frames as originally intended.

Yep, Vistavision movie cameras were also introduced, with a horizontal travel through the camera, but were never used to such an extent as the traditional vertical film travel cameras. Then when Canon's line of 'Full frame' DSLR still cameras came out with very impressive video capability filmmakers started talking about Full frame as if it was the best thing and you had to have it, and APS-C or Super 35 sensors were more for amateur use. This feeling seems to still linger amongst filmmakers and the other day I was told by a video rental house that full frame is the real deal and Super35 sensors are somehow not as good and not as professional. It doesn't really matter though. It's all a bit vain in many ways. Use what you want and each 'system' or size of sensor has its particular benefits and disadvantages. But I tend to think that filmmakers ought to stand proud, and not use still photography names or terms for things where a more exact and more appropriate filmmaking word or term already exists.

Edited November 7, 2023 by Jon O'Brien

[Joerg Polzfusz]

Full Frame and Half Frame are terms used in still photography for cameras using 35mm film. They are used since the 1960s (when the first Half Frame cameras appeared).

Then, more than 50 years later, some advertisers thought that the term Full Frame might be suited for sensor sizes of DSLRs, too (even most sensors are actually smaller than a full frame 35mm negative). This is when some videographers began to think that this is a term used in cinematography…

 

As for Large Format:

In German, there’s „Normalfilm“ (35mm 4-perf) and „Schmalfilm“ (English equivalent: „small format“ - basically everything smaller than 35mm like 16mm, 9.5mm, Super8 and Standard8). And everything that has a greater negative size than the „Normalfilm“ was used to be called „Breitfilm“ (like Cinerama, 70mm 5-perf and IMAX), even though the term isn’t used anymore AFAIK. I don’t know whether „Large Format“ is the correct translation for „Breitfilm“ as there’s also a Large Format in still photography and „Wide Format“ would a more fitting translation. And in some English articles about widescreen, it looks like „Large Gauge“ is the „correct“ English equivalent for „Breitfilm“…

So what’s the correct English term for formats like Cinerama, IMAX, 70mm?

Edited November 7, 2023 by Joerg Polzfusz

[Jon O'Brien]

16 hours ago, Joerg Polzfusz said:

... This is when some videographers began to think that this is a term used in cinematography…

That's right, I think they assumed that "Full frame" was the same sensor size (approximately) as what had been traditionally used for 35mm motion picture film frames in feature production. The great majority of feature movies shot on 35mm, since the beginning of motion pictures, were filmed with a frame size closer to what we today call APS-C or S35.

It's fine to call it Full Frame for convenience since everyone now knows what it means. Historically, though, this sensor size is not the same or similar dimensions to the traditional 'full frame' 35mm cine frame that was by far the most common choice for feature movie production for decades. Sure, the 35mm film frame for vertical camera movement came in different sizes too, but the traditional cine frame was always significantly smaller than what today is called Full frame.

The only problem in all this is that sometimes it can confuse people. So it's best to know your history. Many seem to think that Full frame is 'full professional', and anything less than that is, well, less than that, where as, just like speaking of how many "K's" a camera is (4K, 6K, 8K etc), it ain't necessarily so. There's certainly nothing wrong with Full frame. It's great. But Arri obviously thinks that S35 is still a good sensor size for projects of the highest professional quality, since not all that long ago they brought out the new Arri Alexa 35, which is a truly great camera.

[Raymond Zrike]

Full frame is a terrible term, and I try to use it as little as possible. Usually just use VV or vista vision, and other camera people know what I’m talking about. It’s also sometimes best to talk about things comparatively, so I’ll usually say “formats larger than s35” rather than just LF. And “LF” tends to be shorthand for the Alexa LF rather than a general term (does anyone refer to the Venice as LF?) for cine purposes at least.

The terminology is certainly messy at the moment!

[Eric Eader]

 

The 24x36mm frame size for still photographs has existed since the earliest days of motion picture photography.

As early as 1914, Oskar Barnack realized that 18x24mm cine frame size failed to produce high quality still photo print enlargements, (grain size too large), and so doubled the smaller size creating a horizontally travelling format.  WW1 intervened and it was not until 1924 that Leica cameras entered the market.

This was an expansion of the original conception of the camera being used by cinematographers as a means to check exposure for problematic scenes.

Of course 6x6cm, 4x5 inch, 5x7," 8x10," 11x14," and 16x20" users each sniffed at an alleged "higher quality" the smaller formats claimed and felt theirs' was the highest quality to be had.   (Ah, but at what price?)

It is true that the Nikon F (SLR), took the photo world by storm beginning in 1959, and the rest is history.

More than one hundred years later and this argument is still going on?  HaHa. (The Simpson's Police Chief's son just laughed).

All this proves that "free enterprise"  or  "capitalism" is still alive and kicking, and that sometime in the (near?) future,  the tree will have been thoroughly shaken and the best (most economical?), format will emerge as "standard" until the next production revolution.

 

[silvan schnelli]

@David Mullen ASC I did mean Large Format, because on Wikipedia in the history of vista vision is does mention that 

“As a response to an industry recession brought about by the popularity of television, the Hollywood studios turned to large format movies in order to regain audience attendance.”

Plus, although I now see that ARRI does actually refer to their LF, also as a digital full frame camera,  just the fact that it is called an LF optical system and statements on their sites like

“Shooting in large format is like painting on a bigger canvas”, made me confused on if the term just “large format” in motion picture was just “full frame”.

However, I can see now, that in absolute terms the sensor size technically belongs to the category full frame, or I guess as many would maybe prefer, VistaVision like size.  I suppose with the definition of medium format having a size of 6cm x 6cm or 6cm x 9cm, not even the Alexa 65 has a medium format sensor.

 

I was also curious, since you mentioned Full aperture, is that the same as Open gate ? I read that vistavision has a camera Aperture of 1:1.51 (37.7x25.2mm). What is a camera aperture? My best bet at guessing when I relate it back to lenses is that it’s the field stop, hence the term aperture (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/geoopt/stop.html).

 

 

[silvan schnelli]

@Raymond Zrike@Jon O'Brien I definitely agree that referring to the sensor size as having the same dimensions as VISTAVISION, is perhaps a more appropriate terminology in regards to motion picture (I guess full frame does work too though). If not only for clarity reasons, just for the sheer elegance of the terminology too.

[silvan schnelli]

@Joerg Polzfusz I speak German and yeah  the direct translation would be “wide film”. From what I have gathered from ally e responses, I suppose IMAX could fall under category “medium format” with its roughly 7cmx5cm Film size. 

[Joerg Polzfusz]

AFAIK imax would only be „medium format“ when applying terms/standards from still photography. But when doing this, Vistavision would become „miniature“ (Kleinbild) and 35mm-4perf, 16mm etc. would become „sub-min“ (Kleinstbild)… ?

My main question is: Was/is there an English term in cinematography to sum up all the formats larger than 35mm-4perf?

In Wikipedia, it’s sometimes summed up as „wide gauge“:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_early_wide-gauge_films

… while it’s called „large gauge“ and „larger gauge“ here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widescreen

But on this website, it’s called „large format“:

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/filmdims.htm

 

[Mark Dunn]

Quite a bit of the terminology in the Wiki piece seems to have been coined by the writer himself and there are a number of conflations and misnomers, such as "super gauges" extrapolated from the quite proper Super 35.

Your term "Breitfilm" is very useful and there isn't really an equivalent in English- obviously German can be concise when it wants to be. But I think "'Scope", "70mm" and "IMAX" are probably sufficient for general use. Professionals use 5/70 and 15/70 as specialised terms.

As to "Schmalfilm"- there was a British stop-motion animation company in the 1970s called "Smallfilms". They used 16mm.

Edited November 9, 2023 by Mark Dunn

[David Mullen ASC]

I never heard the term "Open Gate" until ARRI started using it for the Alexa, but I suppose it might have been used in Europe or by projectionists to describe a 4-perf 35mm gate with no masks in it (1.37, 1.85, anamorphic), i.e. Silent / Edison / Full Aperture / Super 35.

There are standards for projection masks but in terms of making a Full Aperture gate in a movie camera, there can be slight variations since that whole area is not a projection format. You see different specs for 4-perf 35mm Super 35 from Panavision and ARRI for example, since the main purpose was the use the maximum width in order to compose a widescreen image inside Full Aperture.

I don't mind if cinema decides to use different definitions for formats compared to still photography, so calling IMAX "large format" is fine because it is the largest cinema format made.  It's just that by that logic, maybe you could call the Alexa 65 "large format" and then the Alexa LF "medium format" but on the other hand, these sorts of naming conventions are not enforced anyway. Remember back when Red started making sensors wider than 24mm and calling that Super 35?  Then Alexa did the same thing, because there was no term for a sensor that was 26mm or 28mm wide. Now the term just covers a range.  

[Simon Wyss]

13 hours ago, David Mullen ASC said:

I never heard the term "Open Gate" until ARRI started using it for the Alexa, but I suppose it might have been used in Europe or by projectionists to describe a 4-perf 35mm gate with no masks in it (1.37, 1.85, anamorphic), i.e. Silent / Edison / Full Aperture / Super 35.

There are standards for projection masks

Yes, and can we please stop using expressions like 1.37?

The regular or normal screen aspect ratio is 4:3. The AMPAS camera aperture has an aspect ratio of around 11:8 or 1.375:1. Only a maximum projectable image area on 35 mm motion-picture film is defined by ISO 2907. The projector apertures should be adapted to the screen while accounting for angles and distorted borders by them. The aspect ratio is still 1:1.333.

Open gate, full gate, full frame, and the like are all hogwash. We have the silent 4:3 normal image and the 4:3 normal image with (a) sound track(s). Super 35 is also rubbish, there is nothing super to it. Edison, for those interested in history, took part at the Paris congress of international film producers in 1907 where the dimensions of camera and projector apertures were agreed upon.

One more time: the normal cinema image is 4:3, still today. It is also in use with the substandard gauges 9.5 mm, 16 mm, 8 mm, and Super-8/Single-8. Television was 4:3 until it got changed to 16:9. CINERAMA, CinemaScope, VistaVision, Todd-AO, Superscope, Technirama, IMAX are special formats. So is Super-16, a blow-up system from 16 mm originals to 35 mm prints of AR 5:3 or 1:1,666.

I have something against the digital electronics world disregarding the optics of the photochemical-mechanical cinema.

[David Mullen ASC]

Most cinema aspect ratios, unlike video (4:3, 16:9), have traditionally been expressed with the vertical length as "1". 

I don't know anyone who takes the time to convert 1 : 1.85 or 1: 2.35 / 2.39 to whatever that would be without the "1" on one side. And if one is going to talk about 1 : 1.85, it seems odd to use 4:3 then for earlier formats just from a parallelism standpoint.

I don't mind using 4:3 if only talking about early cinema, or TV, or still photography -- but I were writing a textbook on cinema aspect ratios, I would stay consistent in style at least if covering more than the early days of cinema.

And cinema wasn't all 4:3 even in the early days -- there were some other formats and aspect ratios though rare. 70mm Fox Grandeur for example, or Gaumont Chronochrome (which was 3-perf to save on stock.)

Academy is .825" x .600", which is 1 : 1.375 -- calling that "4:3" seems like an expression to me, whereas calling it 1 : 1.37 seems more accurate.

I mean, if talking about 16mm and Super 16, and you say 16mm is "4:3" then what do you say Super 16 is?

[Simon Wyss]

The “Academy” camera aperture, if you want so, has the dimensions 0.864" by 0.630" as given by ISO 2906, in force since 1984. It was 0.868" by 0.631" in 1932.

I have the impression that you don’t want to understand that the cinema image is outlined by the screen or blinds in front of it. Projector aperture masks serve to cut out a fitting area with a margin of about a palm or less in the plane of the screen.

Camera exposure apertures do not determine the aspect ratio unconditionally. They are very often a little wider or higher than the exact 1:1.XXX.

And again, no reason to attach little value to the normal image. It has not been invalidated up to this day. I use integers because they leave no room for mistakes. Just the other day somebody cited a technical specification I have given on the lens mount thread of the Meopta Admira 16 electric model A. So many people act so fast and cursorily today, mark-copy-paste incomplete. There stood M 25 × 0,7 on a forum. Wrong. The early mount is M 25 × 0,75. To say nothing of all the ignorants who designate the C-mount thread as M25 or something the like. The M is misplaced, 25 is wrong, and if it were the regular M 25 the pitch would be wrong, too. A space belongs between the M and the figure but that is also not seen.

About Super-16 I have expressed myself clearly.

Yes, most of the pioneers used aspects different from the 1907/09 standard. Le Prince even had square pictures. Until 1909 Gaumont sold prints with the frame line between a pair of perforation holes. I know the technics of the early cinema rather well.