Cropped sensor for Super 35

Jon O'Brien · June 24, 2023

Hello there, I've come across this thing in digital film circles more than a few times where a Super 35 sensor camera is said to be a "cropped sensor camera." Not only this, but it's said by many cinematographers out there that "full frame" is the best way to go, Super 35 being seen as perhaps a bit of a dud or maybe with the suggestion there that it's not quite 'as good', since it's not as big.

But since they are referring to an historical aspect, that of the "full frame" 35mm SLR, they should really be aware that, historically, what they're going on about is from the perspective of still photography. Apart from Vistavision, which wasn't all that common, the great majority of 35mm motion picture film capture was with vertically-oriented 35mm film with a Super 35 sized frame, or the smaller variations on that theme due to an optical soundtrack added to the side, whether 4-perf spherical with black bars at top and bottom giving a sligtht widescreen effect, or 4-perf ananorphic, giving an almost square-shaped frame that was then doubled in width by the projector lens after the image had been photographed in a 2x squeeze effect, giving an even more widescreen image around 2.40-1 or thereabouts.

So, in motion picture circles, "full frame" isn't really the right term for this sensor size. I guess it will have to do though. What else could it be called? It's just that knowledgable cinematographer's shouldn't really refer, if they want to quote history, to Super 35 sensors as "cropped sensors." Also, there are advantages and disadvantages to both Super 35 and so-called "full-frame" sensors. You use what works best for you.

Edited June 24, 2023 by Jon O'Brien

Jon O'Brien · June 24, 2023

I guess the way they see it is that "life began with the Canon EOS full frame DSLR", and anything that came before that, be it on film or on some kind of video setup, is of no further relevance to the modern world. The attitude just comes across as a bit ignorant, if you know a bit of the history of motion picture cameras and of format development. Best to come up with a term other than "full frame" if you're in the business of moving pictures. There's this contemporary starting point with stills cameras. A lot of cinematographers now want to shoot with stills-looking cameras and they tend to use stills terms. Come on, we're not in the business of still photography.

Edited June 24, 2023 by Jon O'Brien

Jon O'Brien · June 24, 2023

BTW, I've got nothing against DSLR style or similar mirrorless designs. They've got much going for them. They're so compact for a start. Use them if you want but just be aware that 'full frame' is a stills term and that a Super 35 is technically not a cropped sensor historically speaking. You might as well say that "full frame" is a "pseudo-wanna-be-65mm-frame-that's-not-the-right-size-but-it's-close-enough." I'm not advocating for that, but that would be an example of putting it in an equally patronizing way. Super 35 is cool and it's no second brother to 'full frame' by any means.

Edited June 24, 2023 by Jon O'Brien

Karim D. Ghantous · June 24, 2023

Perhaps, Jon, the less informed people should go and tell ARRI and Red that their S35 cameras are just not good enough for the big screen. And wait until they see how small the OG BMPCC sensor is - they'd have a fit!

Jon O'Brien · June 24, 2023

Haha, good one Karim.

How about calling so-called full frame "Vista" or "Vista35"? I guess it sounds a bit pretentious but at least it's a better name historically speaking than "full frame" for motion picture production.

Edited June 24, 2023 by Jon O'Brien