"Large Format Look": There’s No Such Thing!
"Large Format Look": There’s No Such Thing!

“Large Format Look”: There’s No Such Thing!

2022-04-04
6 mins read

In this article, we’re contradicting almost everything we said and thought about the ‘Large Format Look’, at least regarding the connection between sensor size and depth of field. Factors affected like shallower depth of field and image compression are not relevant. There’re other characteristics of the large format though, but elevated bokeh is not part of them. In other words, there’s no such thing as a ‘large format look’.

ARRI Mini vs ARRI 65: The difference in angle of view. Picture: Manuel Lübbers
ARRI Mini vs ARRI 65: The difference in angle of view. Picture: Manuel Lübbers

There isn’t a look called ‘Large Format’

This article is based on one of the most comprehensive tests crafted by cinematographer Manuel Lübbers. Although this is not a new test, it is worth mentioning as it explains and clarifies the misconception regarding large format cinematography. The test compared the look of two similar but very different cameras: ARRI ALEXA Mini and ARRI ALEXA 65. The Mini owns a Super 35 sensor, and the ALEXA 65 has the same sensor that the Mini has (ALEV III) but X3. This is a comparison between Super 35 and a very large sensor size. We chose to show this as a continuation to our previous article about the possible obsolesces of S35 sensors. After watching the test carefully, we think that S35 has a huge future, and it’s far from being an obsolete format.

The stereoscopic rig. Picture: Manuel Lübbers
The stereoscopic rig. Picture: Manuel Lübbers

S35 can be perfectly matched to 65

As stated by Manuel: “This test takes a closer look at the characteristics of an image produced by two cameras with different sized sensors. To make the differences as significant as possible I compare the s35mm ALEXA Mini with the 65mm ALEXA 65, which is the largest sensor digital cinema camera on the market right now. Both cameras were mounted in a stereoscopic rig, so the cameras are recording the scene in the same position simultaneously”. Codecs used: ARRI ALEXA 65: 6.5K Open Gate ARRIRAW, 25p, and ARRI ALEXA Mini: 3.4K Open Gate ARRIRAW, 25p. Lenses used: ARRI Rental DNA Primes. As you will explore in the video, the look between S35 and ARRI 65 can be perfectly matched although the significant difference in sensor size. Of course, there’re alterations and differences, but these come from different aspects, as will be discussed later on.

Same angle of view. More bokeh on ARRI 65 (due to a longer lens). Picture: Manuel Lübbers
The same angle of view. More bokeh on ARRI 65 (due to a longer lens). Picture: Manuel Lübbers

It’s all in the ‘Crop factor’

Different sized sensors come with different crop factors which leads to a different angle/field of view when using the same focal length on both formats. The ALEXA Mini has a crop factor of 1.27 compared to LF/ Full Frame, whereas the ALEXA 65 has a crop factor of 0.70. In order to understand the mathematical fact that there’s no difference in ‘bokeh’ between S35 and large format, we have to calculate the ‘Relative crop factor’ between ALEXA 65 to ALEXA Mini. That is: 1.27/0.7 = 1.81. Hence, In order to match the angle of view by focal length compensation, the focal length needs to be multiplied by the crop factor. Example: 18mm Lens on the ALEXA Mini: 18mm x 1.81 = 32.58mm which is the lens that should be paired on the ARRI 65 and order to achieve identical framing.

Same angle of view. More bokeh on ARRI 65 (due to a longer lens). The delta in bokeh is less noticeable because the object is located relatively far from the camera (compared to previous image). Picture: Manuel Lübbers
The same angle of view. More bokeh on ARRI 65 (due to a longer lens). The delta in bokeh is less noticeable because the object is located relatively far from the camera (compared to the previous image). Picture: Manuel Lübbers

Calculating the ‘bokeh’ (blur circle)

Let’s read Manuel’s statement: “Because of the use of a 1.8x longer focal length to get the same angle of view on both formats, you get a shallower depth of field on the ALEXA 65. The blur circle diameter of an out-of-focus object is 1.8x larger on the ALEXA 65 so the background appears more out of focus. It’s important to keep in mind that the blur circles are getting bigger with the factor of magnification, which is proportional to the focal length and is not influenced by the size of the image plane”. Well, that’s one major conclusion. Shallower DOF (Depth of Field) is not achieved by bigger sensor sizes, but due to the longer focal length that this large sensor needs, in order to frame the same object compared to S35.

Same angle of view. More bokeh on ARRI 65 (due to a longer lens).Notice the cleaner image on the ARRI Mini (the S35 sensor can’t cover the entire DNA glass). Picture: Manuel Lübbers
The same angle of view. More bokeh on ARRI 65 (due to a longer lens). Notice the cleaner image on the ARRI Mini (the S35 sensor can’t cover the entire DNA glass). Picture: Manuel Lübbers

Matching between formats.

Cinematographers have the ability to match the bokeh perfectly between S35 and larger sensors, even in medium format. As stated in Manuel’s test: “To match the amount of background blur on both formats you need to close down the aperture by the value of the crop factor of 1.81 stops” (in case you want to match between ALEXA Mini and ALEXA 65). Putting it the other way around, you get a shallower depth of field appropriate to 1.81 stops on the ALEXA 65 compared to the ALEXA Mini when shooting at the same F-Stop. Example: Calculating the F-Stop for the ALEXA 65 that matches the amount of background blur of an F2.8 on the ALEXA Mini: 2.8 x 1.81 = 5.1. That means, 5.1 F-Stop of the ALEXA 65 is equivalent to 2.8 F-Stop on the ARRI Mini. In the case of ALEXA LF (relative crop factor of 1.3), the number is 2.8 X 1.3 = 3.64. Hence, 3.64 F-Stop of the ALEXA LF is equivalent to 5.1 F-Stop of the ALEXA 65, in terms of bokeh (=background blur).

Same angle of view. Equal bokeh. Notice the higher T stop by the factor of the relative crop factor =(1.8-2). on the ARRI 65 (5.6 vs 2.8) Picture: Manuel Lübbers
The same angle of view. Equal bokeh. Notice the higher T stop by the factor of the relative crop factor =(1.8-2). on the ARRI 65 (5.6 vs 2.8) Picture: Manuel Lübbers

Sensor size DOESN’T affect DOF

Another misconception when it comes to sensor size is the depth of field. According to the test and as explained above, sensor size has no effect on depth of field. A larger sensor forces a filmmaker to change the distance of the camera to a subject or use longer lenses to produce similar fields of view to a smaller sensor. It’s that change in focal length, aperture, and distance to the subject that affects depth of field by making it shallower. This is because larger sensors require one to get closer to their subject or to use a longer focal length in order to fill the frame with that subject to get it similar to S35 (or smaller sensors). And that results in more bokeh. That has nothing to do with the size of the sensors. It’s the optics and the location of the camera.

Same angle of view. Equal bokeh. Notice the higher T stop by the factor of the relative crop factor =(1.8-2). on the ARRI 65 (5.6 vs 2.8) Picture: Manuel Lübbers
The same angle of view. Equal bokeh. Notice the higher T stop by the factor of the relative crop factor =(1.8-2). on the ARRI 65 (5.6 vs 2.8) Picture: Manuel Lübbers
Same angle of view. More bokeh on ARRI 65 (due to a longer lens). T Stop is the same. Picture: Manuel Lübbers
The same angle of view. More bokeh on ARRI 65 (due to a longer lens). T Stop is the same. Picture: Manuel Lübbers

Summary

Large format characteristics

If so, what’re the advantages/disadvantages and characteristics of large sensors? Manuel summarizes this pretty well: “A larger sensor has the advantage of providing a higher native resolution while still being able to remain a comparatively large pixel size. This may lead to a better low light performance with a higher spatial frequency noise that looks finer-grained and more subtle. In terms of perspective, the image isn’t influenced by either the format size or focal length like it’s often assumed. A change in perspective or different compression of the space can only be achieved by changing the distance of the camera to the subject” as demonstrated above. Large sensor cameras allow more freedom in some cases, but that sentence can turn also into an endless debate.

Same angle of view. More bokeh on ARRI 65 (due to a longer lens).Notice the cleaner image on the ARRI Mini (the S35 sensor can’t cover the entire DNA glass). Here you can notice vignetting on the ARRI 65. That’s a solid demonstration of the characteristic of large sensor paired with dedicated glass. Picture: Manuel Lübbers
The same angle of view. More bokeh on ARRI 65 (due to a longer lens). Notice the cleaner image on the ARRI Mini (the S35 sensor can’t cover the entire DNA glass). Here you can notice vignetting on the ARRI 65. That’s a solid demonstration of the characteristic of a large sensor paired with dedicated glass. Picture: Manuel Lübbers

Lenses dedicated to large sensors

The effect of a glass that is dedicated to covering a large sensor is even more intriguing. In Manuel’s video, we can see that the DNA lenses produce a strong vignette, blur, and distorted bokeh, as well as add a slight diffusion to the entire image when paired on the ALEXA 65. The Alexa Mini on the other hand, with its smaller sensor, doesn’t use the edge areas lens, where the vignetting and distortion have their strongest impact, which leads to an overall more sterile imagery. Hence, the image of the ALEXA 65 looks more interesting as this huge sensor utilizes the whole glass with all its imperfections. If you’d like, this is the large format look. Not more bokeh, but more fascinating imagery when paired with a proper large format glass. S35 allows ‘cleaner’ imagery though. Indeed, after seeing this demonstration we do think that Super 35 has a big future ahead. ARRI knows that (fact: the forthcoming ARRI S35 4K).  Let’s end this article with this beautiful and educating video below:

Yossy is a filmmaker who specializes mainly in action sports cinematography. Yossy also lectures about the art of independent filmmaking in leading educational institutes, academic programs, and festivals, and his independent films have garnered international awards and recognition.
Yossy is the founder of Y.M.Cinema Magazine.

12 Comments

  1. there is no contradiction between your statement and the article. one of the advantage of large format is you can get large view field.

  2. very scientific writing. as long as the lens stays the same, the flange distance stays the same, the character of the image stays the same. the only difference is the view field. basically “you see wider”. physics.

  3. Well, if you shoot on 18mm T1.5 Tokina on FF, at short distance from the object, in order to get this look on S35 its almost imposible.
    Or I missing something?

    Its getting worse on m43, whereby getting a shallow dof with wide lens on small sensor is very difficult.

    So if we calc the factors for getting shallow dof (distance from object, aperture, focal length of lens) , bigger sensor has the advantage on ultra wider lens whereby bright lenses are harder to find.

  4. Since dawn of time there existed comparisons of Canon 5Dmk2 and RED and Iphone. All useless. So is this article. Can you not see that defocused backgroud is completely diffrent in terms of bokeh etc? But that is the whole point it is not? You can use different glass and get different results? Some better, some worse. See if it all be this simple, nobody would make large format cameras would they? Im just saying… spending all this time making the comparison feels like waste of time. People will use what they use. Nobody who can afford Alexa65 for shoot will change their ming based on articels like this. Because they know better in forst place.

  5. Compressed JPG files don’t help translate image quality much either. I find a vast majority of these articles taking a shot at the big boys are mostly for other people to justify why they don’t use the bigger items mostly out of trying to be small but look big. If you’re good and you have your look you know what tools work for you and it doesn’t matter if it’s an iPhone or an IMAX rig. Just stop trying to put yourself in that company

  6. I remember when this video was released, and cringed immediately. It couldn’t be more unscientific, and the verbose, math-heavy article is quite unnecessary.

    Changing the lens changes too many relevant variables that void the whole test. Boom. Done.

    That said, it was beautifully shot. Kudos to the DP.

    P.S. a speedbooster negates this conversation entirely. Enjoy your day.

  7. They may have similar FOV, but better to shoot a close on a 35 mm compared to an 18 mm. With these excellent lenses, the wide angle distortion isn’t too terrible, but clearly the 35 is the more flattering lens. In general, a FF sensor is giving you better options in wider scenarios and yes more depth of field, because on super 35 an f 2.8 lens is more like a f4. More light on the sensor will give you more depth of field.

  8. WIDE SHOT detail.

    And if you think about it the other way around, how do you express the T 1.3 of the arri 65 camera in the S35? Is it possible?

    in all lens segments. There is a difference of 2 stops.

    arri 65 can express a thin depth of field.

  9. You aren’t comparing S35 lenses with LF lenses, only using LF lenses on different size sensors. There is an “LF look” when comparing to S35 and S16 lenses. Massive differences in compression, barreling, pin cushioning, depth of field, bokeh etc. The title of this article is contradicting. You are only comparing sensor sizes and field of view equivalence and making the claim LF look doesn’t exist. Inaccurate test.

  10. What this article does not mention unless I missed it is, the ability to have a wider field of view with less distortion because your using a longer lens. So a 24mm has approx 12mm field of view with 24mm distortion. I know my numbers are perfect , it depends on 65mm or LF but the idea holds up.
    That is why I like Large Format.

  11. 1) There is no “format look” literally, format is just crop, canvas size.
    There IS a “large-format look” which is not just related to format but format plus focal length for the same field of view.

    2) Those examples are not shot to show the differences.

    3) Format size difference is not about bokeh or depth of field but about PROPORTIONS.

    4) If you shoot a face CU with 18 mm on S35 and 35 mm on large format, 18mm on S35 will look like a caricature, unlike wide lens used on large format. Because focal length for same field of view.

    5) If you shoot people sitting at table camera with camera close to the table, proportions of those closer to the edge of the frame will differ on 18 mm on S35 compared to 35 mm lens on large format. And that 35 mm lagre format shot will intuitively look more appealing. Because larger focal length and more harmonious proportions.

    5) If you shoot architecture, large format wide shots will look more appealing. Because > see above.

    6) If you don’t know what to look for chances are you won’t see it.

    7) If you don’t see something it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

  12. No. Did you not look at a single image in the article!? That’s the entire point of the article. A good rectilinear 18mm looks exactly the same as a good rectilinear 35mm.

    There is no “look”. Just shallower depth of field.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Get the best of filmmaking!

Subscribe to Y.M.Cinema Magazine to get the latest news and insights on cinematography and filmmaking!

Get the best of filmmaking!

Subscribe to Y.M.Cinema Magazine to get the latest news and insights on cinematography and filmmaking!

NAB 2022’s Predictions: A New BMD Camera and DaVinci Resolve 18
Previous Story

NAB 2022’s Predictions: A New BMD Camera and DaVinci Resolve 18

RED has Created “Behind-the-lens mitigation” for Raptor’s Stitched Sensor
Next Story

RED has Created “Behind-the-lens mitigation” for Raptor’s Stitched Sensor

Latest from Educate

Dune Part Two: IMAX Q&A With Greig Fraser

Dune Part Two: IMAX Q&A With Greig Fraser

IMAX has interviewed Greig Fraser ACS, ASC who is the DP behind Dune Part Two. In the interview, Fraser talks about the making of Dune Part Two, how it was different compared…
The Advantages of Underwater Drone.

The Advantages of Underwater Drone

In this fascinating case study, the advantages of underwater drones are demonstrated. Wildlife filmmaker Antoine Drancey has been utilizing the Boxfish Luna underwater drone to film the extraordinary stunning deep underwater world.…
Dune Part Two: One More Fascinating Lens

Dune Part Two: One More Fascinating Lens

Continuing our previous article about the tools behind Dune Part Two, we forgot to mention one more important glass, which would be the IronGlass x VLFV MKII rehoused Soviet lenses. This fascinating…
Dune Part Two: Five Interesting Cinematography Facts

Dune Part Two: Five Interesting Cinematography Facts

ARRI Rental, the company that has extensively supported the moviemaking masterpiece, Dune Part Two, released an educating article regarding the cinematography behind the film. We’ve gathered a few interesting facts. Cameras, lenses,…
Go toTop

Don't Miss

Xelmus Introduced a New X2 APOLLO 24mm t2 Anamorphic Lens

Xelmus Introduced a New X2 APOLLO 24mm t2 Anamorphic Lens

This item just went under the radar. It appears that a few months ago, Xelmus, which specializes in X2 affordable anamorphic lenses for
Dune Part Two: One More Fascinating Lens

Dune Part Two: One More Fascinating Lens

Continuing our previous article about the tools behind Dune Part Two, we forgot to mention one more important glass, which would be the