I was talking to a friend today about the latest feature he worked on as First AD, and he told me the project was shot full frame. Now, I don't know about you, but I have a hard time making this transition to FF when it comes to feature work. True, full-frame offers a wider field of view, shallower depth of field, and better low-light performance due to its larger surface area compared to Super 35 (approx. 1.5x crop). But for me, S35 is the traditional cinema standard, offering a more controlled, "classic" look with a wider, cheaper lens selection, whereas full-frame provides a more immersive, modern feel.
What side do you land on? Let me know in the comments.
3 people like this
This is one of those debates that reveals a lot about how a cinematographer thinks about image-making at a fundamental level — it's rarely just a technical preference, it's almost a philosophy. S35 has that lived-in cinematic familiarity that's hard to argue with, but there's something undeniably immersive about what full-frame brings to certain stories. What's driving the shift you're seeing toward FF on feature work — is it mostly aesthetic, or are practical factors like low-light performance pushing more productions in that direction?
1 person likes this
I always shoot full frame. Sure, I'll put a S35 grid/guide on the viewer, but by crikey, why waste CCD real estate? I'm always astonished at what surprising little gems you can find in the margins when it comes to rough cutting.
1 person likes this
Depends on the camera you use and it's limitations. Personally, I prefer a more shallow depth of field and wider field of view. Full frame is where things are at today.
S35
1 person likes this
It's all fluff and marketing. And a fad. It's not about a "modern" look or something "immersive". Lenses give an image a look, not the sensor. Films in the 70s were shot on Vistavision which is the same size as FF so it's nothing new. I can take a FF sensor and a S35 and make it look exactly the same. FF does NOT intrinsically offer shallower DOF nor a wider field of view. Focal length and distance to subject do that. Check out this side by side of S35 and 65 and you'll see what I mean. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwgkXcUX984
Let's stop this tech obsession nonsense. Take a S35 sensor and shoot at a T1.3 and you'll get all the shallow DOF you could ever want. Shoot on FF at a deeper stop and you'll see the world. Neither one is "better". And you cannot generalize that FF is better in low light. It depends on the camera and science behind the pixels. The Alexa 35 is a low light beast yet it's S35.
I've shot in all formats. I pick the one that works for the project and the visual language I'm creating.
1 person likes this
Well said, Gareth Taylor !