What Camera is this? (Segata Sanshiro Commercial Shoot)

[Tyler Purcell]

Would you please explain the other factors, and how the look is different?

I don't think a cinematographer of your stature, needs an "education" lesson about determining the "look" of super 35mm vs Super 16.

[Samuel Berger]

I don't think a cinematographer of your stature, needs an "education" lesson about determining the "look" of super 35mm vs Super 16.

 

I think your explanation would be helpful to newbies on here who would like to understand your thought process as to how to arrive at that conclusion.

[tom lombard]

^ i'm one of those newbies & would welcome the insight.

[David Hessel]

Yea, but there are so many other factors from depth of field and lens distortion, which "clue" you in pretty quickly. I've done the 24mm on S16 and 50mm on 35mm challenge many times (two of my favorite lens lengths), they give an entirely different look. Anyone who's been shooting for any bit of time can recognize the difference right away.

 

In what way is it an entirely different look? Sure generally speaking a shorter focal length lens will have more barrel distortion and a deeper DOF but this is lens specific and not necessarily the case depending on the apertures chosen. It is possible to have a shot from a s35 40mm lens have more distortion and deeper depth of field than a shot on a s16 20mm lens.

 

Regardless, since this is a cinematography forum and expecially since you are an educator it is important to use the proper terminology.

 

Depth of field and lens distortion are not field of view, neither are the other factors you illuded to. Field of view is the angular dimension of the cameras visual field. Usually it is measured in the horizontal axis since that doesn't change when changing aspect ratios. The field of view for a 40mm lens on s35 is 34.6 degress and the field of view for 20mm on s16 is 34.7 degrees making it nearly impossible to determine the imager size using it alone. These are idealized fov's actual fov for any focal length can vary a little from lens to lens making the determination even more difficult.

[Jon O'Brien]

Is it sort of a subjective 'feel' or 'look' to the image? 35mm can have a different look and sometimes it can be difficult to say exactly why when it's shown on a tv.

[JD Hartman]

There are many other factors from depth of field and lens distortion,

they give an entirely different look.

 

 

Would you please explain the other factors, and how the look is different?

 

This is like bear-baiting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear-baiting

 

Why do you do this?

Edited September 28, 2017 by JD Hartman

[Samuel Berger]

 

 

 

This is like bear-baiting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear-baiting

 

Why do you do this?

 

Because of shallow depth of variable shutter angle aperture at neutral density focal length frames per F-stop.

[Tyler Purcell]

Why do you do this?

He just wants to find ways to prove my "incompetence" as a professional cinematographer.

[Robin R Probyn]

Bear baiting and medieval torture aside :) .. as per post #29.. surely it would be practically impossible to tell.. you say an entirely different look.. but in what way.. also just want to know for my own knowledge.. personally I would never be able to tell..

[Tyler Purcell]

In order of importance:

 

- Field of View (is edge/barrel distortion present on the wider shots)

- Depth of field (how shallow is it on the wider shots)

- Size of grain (dirt particulates)

- Sharpness/crispness of shot

- Un-cropped aspect ratio

 

If you study S16 content and see that in most cases, everything in frame is in focus... you put that plus film grain together and you can usually determine if it's S16 pretty quickly.

 

Yes, with situations that are unusual, like modern/fast 1.3x anamorphic lenses, shot with 50D, exterior using long lenses, it's a bit harder to look at that beautiful 2.40:1 image and immediately claim it's S16 as 2 perf 35mm looks nearly the same. However, most people don't shoot that way, most people use higher speed stocks and wider lenses, so it's much easier to tell. So it's harder to tell with longer lenses which are open a lot.

 

With all of that said, it's still rather easy to be fooled if you're unaware of these things.

[Dom Jaeger]

Right, so actually nothing to do with the field of view.

 

Lens distortion is a completely different thing to field of view. And you're just as likely to find distortion in 35mm cinematography, whether due to wide angle lenses, zooms or anamorphic lenses.

 

So to clarify for those who may have been misled, you can't actually determine the format just by the field of view.

[Brian Drysdale]

The 35mm Zeiss Contax FF stills lens that I used on my Aaton had more barrel distortion than the 25mm Zeiss Super Speed designed for 16mm/super16 coverage that I also owned at the time..

[Stuart Brereton]

I don't think a cinematographer of your stature, needs an "education" lesson about determining the "look" of super 35mm vs Super 16.

 

 

I'm not asking for an education, I'm asking you to clarify, and expand upon an assertion that you made. As others have pointed out, there are many 'newbies' here who may not understand what you are saying.

 

He just wants to find ways to prove my "incompetence" as a professional cinematographer.

 

What I want, Tyler, is for you to be willing and able to defend the statements that you make, rather than grandly asserting something and daring people to disagree with you.

 

As Dom noted in his post, the "clues' that you use to identify 16mm over 35mm have nothing to do with Field of View, and so your statement was misleading.

 

I regularly have to deal with camera interns and trainees who come to set full of weird notions and partially understood concepts that they picked up on the internet somewhere. Sometimes what they've read is just plain wrong, and sometimes it's just badly explained. Either way, the amount of misinformation and confusion over what are fairly simple photographic concepts is amazing. I spend a fair amount of time trying to answer questions from trainees, as do most working DPs. I think we owe it to ourselves to make sure the information disseminated on this site is as clear and concise as possible.

[Tyler Purcell]

As Dom demonstrated in his post, the "clues' that you use to identify 16mm over 35mm have nothing to do with Field of View, and so your statement was misleading.

Lens distortion is a completely different thing to field of view.

Yes, but if you take the same lens and put it on a S16 and S35 camera, the distortion between the two will be different.

 

So "field of view" which is defined by the imager size in most cases, has a direct effect on the ability to see/detect lens distortion.

 

If the field of view doesn't change, then the lens distortion means nothing in determining formats. This is why it's hard to determine what is shot between different cameras of similar field of view.

[Dom Jaeger]

Yes, but if you take the same lens and put it on a S16 and S35 camera, the distortion between the two will be different.So "field of view" which is defined by the imager size in most cases, has a direct effect on the ability to see/detect lens distortion.If the field of view doesn't change, then the lens distortion means nothing in determining formats. This is why it's hard to determine what is shot between different cameras of similar field of view.

Well yeah if you put a 35mm lens that happens to have distortion on a 16mm camera you're only using the centre of the lens so you won't see as much of the distortion. Which is actually arguing against your own hypothesis that distortion is an indication of 16mm footage.

 

I'm not really sure what you're trying to argue here, the only point I want to make is that your claim to be able to instantly tell that this footage was 35mm "by the field of view" is nonsensical.

[David Hessel]

If you put the same lens on both cameras the lens distortion remains the same only the field of view changes. Crop your s35 shot to half resolution and it will look exactly like the s16.

 

 

If the field of view doesn't change, then the lens distortion means nothing in determining formats. This is why it's hard to determine what is shot between different cameras of similar field of view.

 

 

Do you realize you have just completely contradicted yourself.

Edited September 29, 2017 by David Hessel

[Robin R Probyn]

In order of importance:

 

- Field of View (is edge/barrel distortion present on the wider shots)

- Depth of field (how shallow is it on the wider shots)

- Size of grain (dirt particulates)

- Sharpness/crispness of shot

- Un-cropped aspect ratio

 

If you study S16 content and see that in most cases, everything in frame is in focus... you put that plus film grain together and you can usually determine if it's S16 pretty quickly.

 

Yes, with situations that are unusual, like modern/fast 1.3x anamorphic lenses, shot with 50D, exterior using long lenses, it's a bit harder to look at that beautiful 2.40:1 image and immediately claim it's S16 as 2 perf 35mm looks nearly the same. However, most people don't shoot that way, most people use higher speed stocks and wider lenses, so it's much easier to tell. So it's harder to tell with longer lenses which are open a lot.

 

With all of that said, it's still rather easy to be fooled if you're unaware of these things.

 

 

Mmm confused.. then from what others have said re lenses.. its really only down to grain.. if its not field of view, depth of field or distortion,crispness etc.. Ive seen some films and been surprised to learn they were shot on s16 afterwards .. having presumed being fairly big budget with name actors.. they would be s35..

[Tyler Purcell]

What I want, Tyler, is for you to be willing and able to defend the statements that you make, rather than grandly asserting something and daring people to disagree with you.

You want me to defend my statements because you want to find faults in my reasoning/judgement. That's the only thing you and everyone else appears to be after. My information is not wrong in any way, it maybe "interpreted" incorrectly by other people because langauge is not one of my strong points.

 

Instead of "calling me out", why don't you think for a second of what I could mean. Accept that people have different opinions on things based on their own experiences and move on?

 

This is not wikipedia, this thread is not a source of information for our future children to learn from. We are a discussion board called an "internet forum" and what we do is share our OPINIONS, that's all this is for. If you want facts, buy the AC manual, study it from front to back and ignore pretty much everything said on an internet forum.

[Stuart Brereton]

You want me to defend my statements because you want to find faults in my reasoning/judgement. That's the only thing you and everyone else appears to be after. My information is not wrong in any way, it maybe "interpreted" incorrectly by other people because langauge is not one of my strong points.

 

Instead of "calling me out", why don't you think for a second of what I could mean. Accept that people have different opinions on things based on their own experiences and move on?

 

This is not wikipedia, this thread is not a source of information for our future children to learn from. We are a discussion board called an "internet forum" and what we do is share our OPINIONS, that's all this is for. If you want facts, buy the AC manual, study it from front to back and ignore pretty much everything said on an internet forum.

Tyler, you made a statement that you could tell the difference between 16mm and 35mm based on the field of view. Since what you said is highly unlikely, you were asked to explain yourself. You did that by listing other factors which have nothing to do with Field of View, and then going on to contradict yourself. Your statement was misleading at best.

 

I really don't understand why you are so resistant to making sure what you say is accurate. Seems a very strange attitude from someone who calls himself an educator, and purports to run a film school.

 

If you don't like people 'calling you out', try making sure what you say has a basis in fact. Whether you believe it or not, people do use forums like this as an educational resource, and they might have no way of knowing what's true and what's not. It's up to those of us who post here to make sure we do not spread falsehoods and confusion.

[Jon O'Brien]

The poignant humour of the light-hearted headlock sound effect is somewhat apt.

[Tyler Purcell]

Tyler, you made a statement that you could tell the difference between 16mm and 35mm based on the field of view. Since what you said is highly unlikely, you were asked to explain yourself.

I did explain myself, the top factor was field of view. If you don't change the field of view, then the rest of those factors are worthless. So #1 is a change in field of view. Now from my "understanding" field of view between formats is controlled by the size of the gate. In the case of S16 vs S35 it's a pretty large difference. If the gate size stays the same, then you are not changing formats are you?

 

It is not a misleading statement at all. It's a statement made specifically for professionals like myself, who know the same things I do. I did not make the statement for beginners or people who have never worked with both formats on a daily basis like I do. If people want to learn more about field of view and why it pretains to understanding a format, there are a few fantastic places to learn about it and by studying the subject, instead of being told everything, they will most likely retain. This is why when I teach, I don't stand in front of a classroom with a powerpoint, telling everything to everyone. I let my students figure poop out on their own and simply verify their findings with me. This is the main reason I don't like to clarify things. Professionals shouldn't need any clarification.

 

Seems a very strange attitude from someone who calls himself an educator, and purports to run a film school.

My students are expected to study before coming to class. My job as a teacher is to point them in the right direction and to give them the opportunity to show their skills in class. Then we can discuss and I can comment on what I or other people in the class, would do differetly. It's called "hands on learning" and it's a technique that works really well with filmmaking, especially cineamtography with students who are already acceptional.

 

 

If you don't like people 'calling you out', try making sure what you say has a basis in fact.

Stuart, you call me out in every god damn thread you and I are both present in. I'm honestly tired of it and it's unprofessional.

[Gregg MacPherson]

I have to honor Stuart, Dom, Robin, and...the others that take on this responsibility...It's no easy thing to keep correcting Tyler while maintaining ones patience and a civil attitude. Hats off. I don't know why Tyler keeps this up. Is he a perverse fantisist? What the f--k is it..! It's all too sad really. Makes me feel ill. And the weirdest thing is, that he may end up becoming the thing that he has been pretending to be. Which case, hats off to him. But what a lot of damage and nonsense along the way. The intrinsic quality of all this nonsense will linger. It will stick for good......

 

If I get shot down with the red arrows, please someone restore the balance. Thanks.

[Robin R Probyn]

Ive had my say about all this.. and have tried to not get involved again.. all I would say is that in this forum there is of course room for artistic discussion.. which by definition is totally subjective .. and Im all for it.. it gets heated and thats great.. unless the "nasty " names come out.. :)..

 

But anything technical .. that has to be correct.. Ive been called out on duff info .. which is totally correct.I learned too.. alot of people come to this forum for detailed information.. Ive learnt alot over the years.. it is an educational site.. of pretty high standing .. and it is a problem if there is all this mis info .. couched not as .. I think.. or maybe.. but I know.. Im an expert..Im a teacher.. this is fact.. as per the Sony camera debacle .. :)

 

Tyler.. you do sort of paint a very big target on your back, just by coming out with crazy stuff.. no one is out to get you.. but they just cant let crazy stuff go by.. I didnt want people to thing that Slog in Sony camera ,s is total crap.. because its patently not IF you know what your doing.. not to say I do.. but there are plenty of examples of it, by those that do.. there are alot of students on the site.. they are looking for good answers.. if I post bollocks about Panavison and Dino,s on huge Hollywood sets.. that I know nothing about.. I,ll get my arse kicked .. on any forum this will happen.. and it should ..

[Stuart Brereton]

I did explain myself, the top factor was field of view. If you don't change the field of view, then the rest of those factors are worthless. So #1 is a change in field of view. Now from my "understanding" field of view between formats is controlled by the size of the gate. In the case of S16 vs S35 it's a pretty large difference. If the gate size stays the same, then you are not changing formats are you?

The whole point is that the FoV doesn't change. a 16mm camera with a 25mm lens and a 35mm camera with a 50mm lens have the same FoV. If you're using grain size, DoF, or aspect ratio to determine which is which, then fine, but that's not what you said.

 

 

It is not a misleading statement at all. It's a statement made specifically for professionals like myself, who know the same things I do.

And it's professionals who are telling you that your statement was factually incorrect and misleading.

I let my students figure poop out on their own and simply verify their findings with me. I don't like to clarify things

You and I obviously have very different definitions of what it means to be a teacher. Letting students 'figure poop out on their own' is not teaching. Telling them how you would have done it differently is not teaching. Requiring them to study before they attend your 'school' is not teaching.

 

 

Stuart, you call me out in every god damn thread you and I are both present in.

I'll make you a deal, Tyler. If you put a disclaimer on every one of your posts, saying that it is purely your OPINION, not fact, and therefore should be 'pretty much ignored' (your words, not mine) then I'll stop correcting your inaccuracies. Sound fair?

 

If not, then I'm gong to continue to speak up when you say things that are obviously wrong, misleading, or straight up fantasy.

[David Hessel]

I for one am not tracking you down trying to call you out on things but if I see something that is incorrect I am going to point it out. I would do that for anyone and would want it done for me as well, after making mistakes is one of the ways in which we learn.

 

Dom asked you this,

 

Sorry, I'm just trying to understand what you're saying.

OK so you're not talking about the shape of the frame (aspect ratio)?

Do you mean you can tell the field of view is say a 40mm lens on S35 rather than a 20mm lens on S16?

 

and you replied with this

 

 

Yes, field of view is very recognizable, especially with an "open gate" image.

Once you start cropping the image and use longer lenses, the field of view aspect becomes less noticeable between formats. It's really at the "wider" side of things, it's most noticeable.

 

There is no room for interpretation here, this isn't something subjective or a matter of opinion, this is factually incorrect. As was later pointed out the field of view in both examples is identical for all practical purposes. Once pointed out you could have acknowledged your mistake or misunderstanding and corrected yourself. Instead you posted about how DOF, grain, etc... can also be used to determine format. Which is true on varying levels but doesn't change your first assertion that you can determine format using only the FOV. The responses given made me feel like you didn't fully understand what you were talking about and this matter could have been cleared up quickly with a better explanation.

 

For example in reply to Dom if you had replied "No you cannot tell the difference between them because the field of view is nearly identical, but you can use field of view to determine format if you know the focal length of the lens. Once you start cropping the image and use longer lenses, the field of view aspect becomes less noticeable between formats. It's really at the "wider" side of things, it's most noticeable."

 

I am pretty sure just about everyone here would agree with that.

Edited October 1, 2017 by David Hessel