Bigger is better? OK, but why?

What gives large formats “depth”, “roundness”, and “dimensionality”?

Whether it’s Quentin Tarantino shooting “Hateful Eight” in 65mm, the Panavision Millenium DXL, RED’s VV sensors, the Arri Alexa 65, or the new Sony Venice, large format cinematography is being touted as the Next Big Thing (pun intended). Large format—from full-frame 36 x 24mm to RED/DXL’s 40.96 x 21.60mm, Arri’s 54.12 x 25.58 mm, and beyond—is said to deliver greater depth, dimensionality, roundness, naturalness, and just all-around goodness than plain old Super35mm at 25 x 18mm (more or less, depending on the camera). It’s not uncommon to find rapturous reports of using large formats, and there’s a raging discussion on CML this past week about just why bigger is better.

What strikes me in many of these colloquies is that it’s exceedingly hard to pin down what exactly it is about large format work that gives it that special quality. There tends to be a lot of handwaving, with amorphous terms like “naturalness”, “dimensionality”, and “roundness” that elude definition. Sometimes two images are presented for comparison: shot on different film stocks, of different subjects, with different lighting in different environments, using different aspect ratios (we are not making this up). It’s all a bit too much “is this apple more like a banana, or is this tangerine more like a guava?” for my tastes.

Trust, but verify

In an attempt to better understand the “large format experience”, I decided to shoot the same subjects on two or three formats of different sizes, varying some parameters while keeping others constant. In this way I could look at individual factors, including:

  • Aspect ratio
  • Resolution
  • Focal length / angle of view
  • Aperture / depth of field
  • “Look-around”

If there’s magic sauce involved, this methodology should squeeze it out.

To that end, I procured two Sony ILCs: an A6300 with a Super35mm-ish sensor, and an A7ii as a full-frame exemplar. Both cameras have the same photosite count so I could match resolutions between formats. They also have similar image rendering characteristics, so I can minimize the effects of differing color and tonal-scale responses.

Both cameras came with kit lenses, a 16–50mm f/3.5–5.6 on the A6300 and a 28–70mm f/3.5–5.6 on the A7ii. These are typical Sony kit zooms: they render images with boringly middle-of-the-road good quality, low distortion, minimal flare, and unfussy bokeh. Importantly, the lenses lack substantial differentiating “character”, so there’s nothing that calls attention to the particular lens used to make an image. Thus I can avoid the sorts of biases that might creep in from shooting one format with a crisp Zeiss prime and the other with, say, a Lomo Petzval.

You might ask why I didn’t get some proper video or cine cameras and lenses for this test, like a Sony F55 for S35mm and a Venice for full frame, and a case full of matched Zeiss primes for each. All I can say is: if you pay for the rentals and insurance, I’ll happily test ’em.

I also threw a Panasonic GH5 into the mix, with an MFT sensor half the width of full-frame. Its photosite count is 14% lower and its color and tone handling are different, but its 12-35mm f/2.8 zoom is just about as boring as the Sony kit zooms when it comes to “character”. I shot all three cameras in their Rec.709 modes (PP4 on the Sonys, Like709 on the Panasonic) to get them all as close as possible to a common rendering.

  • Sony A7ii: 35.8 x 20.1 mm (in 16×9); 6000 x 3376 photosites. Full-frame, “FF”
  • Sony A6300: 23.5 x 13.2mm (in 16×9); 6000 x 3376 photosites. Super35mm, “S35mm”
  • Panasonic GH5: 17.3 x 9.7mm (in 16×9); 5184 x 2916 photosites. Micro Four Thirds, “MFT”

Shall we have a look? I’ll present a series of image comparisons. In each one, I’ve varied one thing while keeping everything else constant—but I won’t say what I’ve done. Have a look at each comparison and see how the images vary—if they do.

For best results use a “large format” tablet, laptop, or desktop machine; a “small format” phone won’t give the clearest view of the images. Yes, sometimes size does matter.

Which images have the most “dimensionality”, “depth”, “roundness”, and/or “naturalness”? What have I changed between the images in a comparison, and how do those changes contribute to the “large format look”?

Afterwards, I’ll show each series again, with explanations and commentary.

TL;DR version: skip to page 2 if you want to bypass all the freakin’ Junior Detective work and just see what the heck it was I did. Because, maybe—just maybe—you have a life and want to get on with it?

Series 1

Series 1 image A

Series 1 image B

Series 1 image C

Series 2

Series 2 image B

Series 2 image D

Series 2 image E

Series 3

Series 3 image B

Series 3 image F

Series 3 image G

Series 3 image H

Series 4

Series 4 image B

Series 4 image I

Series 5

Series 5 image S

Series 5 image J

Series 5 image L

Series 6

Series 6 image M

Series 7

Series 7 image X

Series 7 image Y

Series 7 image Z

Series 8

Series 8, shot T

Series 8, shot U

Series 8, shot V

Series 9

Series 9 image B3

Series 9 image B

When you’re ready, go to page 2…

Was This Post Helpful:

0 votes, 0 avg. rating

Share Our Article

PVC Staff
Adam Wilt has been working off and on in film and video for the past thirty years, while paying the bills writing software for animation, automation, broadcast graphics, and real-time control for companies including Abekas,…

Leave a Reply

9 Comment threads
11 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
11 Comment authors
Geoff Boyle NSCAdam WiltLeonBob KerteszDerek Recent comment authors
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Daniel Colmenares
Daniel Colmenares

Adam, First thanks again for taking the time to make these articles. I find them to be very helpful and insightful. You nailed the factor that I think is just not being explored enough about big formats – Specifically test #8. Look at the background magnification between the A7 and a6300 and the GH5. The A7S’s background is less magnified and feels less compressed and gives me a better sense of depth to the room. I feels more “normal”. This is something that I really love about the larger format’s inherent shallower depth of field and larger field of view… Read more »

Richard van den Boogaard

Thanks for taking the time to do these elaborate tests – very insightful.

The key reason why I would prefer an FF sensor over an S35 has to do with flexibility, although both formats have its merits.

With FF, you can shoot under more difficult circumstances
– tight spaces
– dark locations

With S35 (or MFT even more so), you can reach further
– crop factor (1.6 for S35 or 2.2 for MFT)

Also, with FF, you get to use all of your glass, not a (sub-optimal) portion of it.


Thank you for this test. I’ve been trying to convince people of these points for years. But there’s a kind of hard wired correlation in a lot of minds of focal length to perspective. And to a lesser degree angle of view. When perspective is entirely a function of subject to camera distance. And angle of view relative to focal length is entirely dependent on format size. So when one is familiar with FF 35mm for example, and learns that a 24mm is a “wide angle” with certain charateristics and perspective distortions, they assume that carries over to other formats.… Read more »


Thank you for this comparison, Adam. One thing i noticed in all CML discussions is almost no one tells about difference of all formats in motion scenes. Cinematography is not only about still frames, of course. So… If you match FF and S35 for example in all terms for a given scene with a person standing in front of a lens with some background or foreground elements (35mm 5.6 for FF and 24 mm 4.0 for S35 for example with same distance to the subject to match all differences in a “still” frame), wouldnt the motion of a persont towards… Read more »


Regarding the ability of large lenses to “look around”, I was thinking that this phenomenon is indeed true, and it’s the fundamental reason why large apertures have a shallow depth of field, and why a shallow depth of field can be synthetically created (via computational photography techniques) from either a multi-camera array, or a single camera moved through space in a circle (in an effort to effectively create a large aperture by drawing it in time, see here for more: Anyway, the idea is that blurriness created by large apertures is fundamentally a composite of many slightly different points… Read more »


I’ve been a proponent of large format and have felt excited about all the large format cameras coming out and the new generation of large format lenses from all the majors… however, I recently watched two of David Fincher’s films shot on the 2/3″ chip digital cameras a decade ago (Zodiac and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button), and they hold up really well, with perfectly cinematic images with nice depth and dimensionality. So after seeing those, and knowing that, at least in the case of Benjamin Button, lenses in the range of 6-24mm (!!!) were used (Zeiss DigiPrimes according… Read more »

Bob Kertesz
Bob Kertesz

Hey, Adam, I really enjoyed your iPhone slates :). As for the ’roundness’ of different sized sensors/lenses… Delusional rubbish. People see what they want to see based on their preconceived notions, which are based on, usually, very little factual data. When pressed to define exactly what they mean, proponents of ‘more roundness’ are almost always at a loss for words, and the conversation ends when I hear them utter a Supreme Court Justice’s definition of pornography: “I know it when I see it.” The only place where I have seen ’roundness’ be a thing is in post 3D conversion, where… Read more »


Great writeup, and I thank you for it! Adam, what do you make of this rather thorough video comparison from Panavision:

Geoff Boyle NSC

Thanks Adam, clear and concise as always 🙂

So much BS in our business.

To the person mentioning Zodiac, yes DigiPrimes, I visited the shoot to learn the approach before I shot Mutant Chronicles using the same kit!