We’ve seen our share of formats over the decades—Kinetoscope, Cinerama, Cinemascope, Ultra Panavision 70, IMAX—but out of all of them, Super 35 is probably the most popular among filmmakers since its debut in the early 1980s.
This is the battle of super 35 vs full frame.
What we’re seeing today is the industry moving towards larger full frame sensors, or what we like to refer to as full format emerge. These are cameras with sensors approximately 36mm x 24mm, though they may be slightly larger or smaller (but below 65mm).
Discussions are shifting towards topics like,: “What’s the difference between Super 35 and full frame?” and “Which one should I use?” The latter has a simpler answer: Neither one is right or wrong. They’re tools.
Define your story. Choose the look you want. It doesn’t have to be one format throughout the entire process.
Format, resolution, color bit depth, frame rate, lenses and camera type are all tools to tell story. Some tout advantageous attributes, e.g. recording a higher resolution like 4K so you can “punch in” or “reframe” during post when you’re delivering in HD or shooting RAW to maximize dynamic range for the color grade. Each project should have its own look and its own resonating visual grammar.
As a director, cinematographer, camera operator, and producer, don’t choose a look because it’s “what Sven Nykvist, Freddie Young, Roger Deakins or what any other cinematographer out there has done." Ask yourself WHY you should choose a certain camera, lens or resolution. WHY do we want a shallow depth of field? WHY do we need Steadicam at this moment? WHY do we need this framing?
Define your story. Choose the look you want. It doesn’t have to be one format throughout the entire process. Mix aspect ratios, mix resolutions, mix primes and zooms, mix anamorphic and spherical, mix film and digital. There are no rules. Well, maybe one: Don’t have shitty sound.
When it comes to choosing between Super 35 and full format, there’s a lot that can affect the cinematography process.
And YES, there will always be exceptions when you can’t choose, such as Netflix’s current 4K mandate, your budget sucks, you’re poor, etc. Try to choose everywhere you can. It will make you a better filmmaker.
When it comes to choosing between Super 35 and full format, there’s a lot that can affect the cinematography process. Both sensors are based on the size of 35mm film but full format is traditionally larger than Super 35. It begs the question, what kind of image results do these two formats produce?
Loren Simons, Sr. Field Applications Engineer at Canon USA, created a test using the Canon C700 FF and two lens focal lengths to show us. For Canon, he says, “Larger sensors means more real estate, which means we can maintain our optimal pixel pitch but still gain in overall resolution.”
If you’re unfamiliar with pixel pitch, it’s the distance between pixels measured from the center of one pixel to the center of the next. The smaller the pitch, the higher the pixel density which yields a higher resolution. A higher pixel pitch creates a greater distance between the pixels and a lower resolution. However, higher resolution doesn’t always mean better.
Two viewpoints on the resolution topic come from Michel Cioni, Senior VP of Innovation at Panavision & Light Iron, where they discussed at Camerimage the difference (and importance) of resolution and sharpness. The other is cinematographer Steve Yedlin’s topic of ‘Why resolution doesn’t matter.” Both are worth a watch if you haven’t seen them.
Simons setup a live demonstration to help filmmakers better visualize how these different formats can be used. On one end was the Canon C700 FF mounted on dolly track and at the other end sat a model and back drop.
Super 35 vs Full Frame
Spec wise, the Canon 700 FF has a 38.1mm x 20.1mm sensor and a 43.1mm image circle—18.69 megapixels (5952 x 3140) or 5.9K and a pixel size of 6.4 x 6.4 μm. Super 35 is cropped in-camera and there’s also a Super 16 mode. The lens used was a ZEISS 28-80mm T2.9 Compact Zoom. The point of the test is to illustrate the difference between full format and Super 35.
Canon C700 FF – Full Format
Lens focal length: 48mm
Distance from subject: 8 feet
Credit: Canon
Canon C700 FF – Super 35
Lens focal length: 48mm
Distance from subject: 8 feet
Credit: Canon
When you look at the two images above, you can see the full format sensor shows a much wider image than the Super 35. Most of us already know this as Simons points out, “With the larger sensor, you’re scanning a larger portion of the image circle so you’re going to see more of the image.”
Does a larger sensor mean you’re getting a shallower depth of field? Simons notes, “That’s not inherently true.” Take a close look at the two images below:
Canon C700 FF – Super 35
Lens focal length: 48mm
Distance from subject: 8 feet
Credit: Canon
Canon C700 FF – Full Format
Lens focal length: 48mm,
Distance from subject: 8 feet, 1.45x Digital Zoom
Credit: Canon
When you look at these two images, you will notice that the second image is zoomed 1.45x digitally to match the frame size of the Super 35. You can also see that there’s no change in bokeh or image compression. Simons says, “The point here is to show you that the second image is simply scanning a larger portion of the image circle. No other characteristics are changing.”
Now let’s take a look at two different focal lengths in both formats and see how it affects the image.
Canon C700 FF – Full Format
Lens focal length: 70mm
Distance from subject: 8 feet
Credit: Canon
Canon C700 FF – Super 35
Lens focal length: 48mm
Distance from subject: 8 feet
Credit: Canon
Here, the full format image has a 70mm focal length and Super 35 has a 48mm focal length (but share the same distance). The framing on both sensors is the same but the bokeh of the full format is larger and we have a shallower depth of field. As Simons points out, “It’s not directly because the sensor is larger that gives us the shallower depth of field. It’s the fact that the larger sensor shows a wider field of view and that traditionally forces us to zoom the lens in optically to maintain the same framing. That's what gives us a shallower depth of field.”
In the next test, instead of zooming the lens in, Simons moved the camera closer to the subject. Check out the two images:
Canon C700 FF – Full Format
Lens focal length: 48mm
Distance from subject: 6 feet
Credit: Canon
Canon C700 FF – Super 35
Lens focal length: 48mm
Distance from subject: 8 feet
Credit: Canon
“What’s really happening here is in the background and the foreground,” says Simons. “In the full format image, you can see a bunch of new lights near the top and bottom in the background. Take note of the green light on the top and the blue and yellow ones o then bottom. Notice the wall sconce that we see in the full format but not the Super 35. In fact, the inverse is happening in the foreground. You’re seeing less than what you’re getting in full format image than the Super 35 image.”
What’s happening here is what Simons describes as “The Revenant Effect.” Yes, the Alejandro G. Inarritu/Emmanuel Lubezki film starring Leonardo DiCaprio. Basically, by adjusting the position of the camera instead of focal length, you are bringing the foreground closer while pushing the background further away, thus making it feel more expansive.
Keep in mind this test was done with the Canon C700 FF and a Zeiss. ARRI, RED, Sony, Panasonic, and everyone else in between may produce different results. At least, for now, you can generally understand what’s happening with your subject with larger sensors.
Hope this settled super 35 vs full frame.
If you’re interested in seeing how other camera sensors work with different focal lengths, there are a few options. ARRI has a great tool called the ARRI Lens Illumination Guide and AbelCine created a handy field of view tool found here.
Richard Gere and Uma Thurman in 'Oh, Canada' via Kino Lorber 
Uma Thurman in 'Oh, Canada'via Kino Lorber 
