Do different format sizes produce different images?

[Adrian Bacon]

So, resolution aside, you can get the same image from a 35mm as a 6x9? There's no magic fairy dust that appears when you go up in size?

The field of view may be the same, but the DOF is different, and having the same field of view through a longer lens (in the larger format) does not look the same and having the same field of view through a shorter focal length lens (in the smaller format). Generally, the longer focal length gives a more pleasing render in terms of distortion and perspective. Add to that the larger negative area with more available total resolution for the FOV and you start to get into having finer details rendered with a different amount of contrast in the larger format than you would with the smaller format.

Combine all those together, in film, larger format renders a more pleasing looking picture to the eye.

 

[tomfrh]

I've taken a few comparison images now (mainly with that other type of camera system). Comparing 35mm with APS, one quarter APS, and one sixteenth APS. I also compared 645 film with smaller format film. All shot from same position and using lens settings to achieve the same field of view and depth of field. The resultant images are all the same, except more detail the larger the format.

So I agree with those of you who say that aside from resolution/graininess/enlargeability there is no fundamental difference across formats.

 

[darinwc]

I don't know if this had been discussed yet, but the different aspect ratio s do seem to give a different perspective. For instance square 6x6 vs 6x7 vs 6x9. They have a different balance with subjects and empty space.

 

[tomfrh]

I don't know if this had been discussed yet, but the different aspect ratio s do seem to give a different perspective. For instance square 6x6 vs 6x7 vs 6x9.

Yes the different aspect ratios gives a different effect, that's for sure!

For my original question I was assuming the same aspect ratio, so as to compare like with like.

 

[Vaughn]

...So I agree with those of you who say that aside from resolution/graininess/enlargeability there is no fundamental difference across formats.

Since the resolution/graininess/enlargeability create funtamental differences in how we perceive the images, I think the answer to your original question is yes...sort of...as long as we realize that it is the photographer that creates the images...not the equipment.

 

[wiltw]

The field of view may be the same, but the DOF is different, and having the same field of view through a longer lens (in the larger format) does not look the same and having the same field of view through a shorter focal length lens (in the smaller format). Generally, the longer focal length gives a more pleasing render in terms of distortion and perspective. Add to that the larger negative area with more available total resolution for the FOV and you start to get into having finer details rendered with a different amount of contrast in the larger format than you would with the smaller format.

Combine all those together, in film, larger format renders a more pleasing looking picture to the eye.

The only thing that changes 'perspective' is camera position; format size alters 'framing'. At the same camera position, when using suitable FL for same AOV and using a suitable f/stop,
both 1) DOF zone depth and 2) far field background blur quantity is IDENTICAL.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[Adrian Bacon]

The only thing that changes 'perspective' is camera position; format size alters 'framing'. At the same camera position, when using suitable FL for same AOV and using a suitable f/stop,
both 1) DOF zone depth and 2) far field background blur quantity is IDENTICAL.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

That is true. I had assumed the aperture would be the same between the two.

As far as perspective, perhaps we should define what that means:

"the art of drawing solid objects on a two-dimensional surface so as to give the right impression of their height, width, depth, and position in relation to each other when viewed from a particular point."

A wide lens with a smaller film surface from a given position will have one perspective, keep everything the same but put a long lens and larger film surface in place, and compare the two side by side. There is a difference.

 

[wiltw]

A wide lens with a smaller film surface from a given position will have one perspective, keep everything the same but put a long lens and larger film surface in place, and compare the two side by side. There is a difference.

The relationship of objects to one another does not change with FL when the camera position is unaltered...what fits within the frame is what changes, but this does not alter 'perspective' which is photographically the relationship of objects to the main subject. This is proven with photos 3, 4, 5 as seen in this post on another forum...
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=7667313

 

[Adrian Bacon]

The relationship of objects to one another does not change with FL when the camera position is unaltered...what fits within the frame is what changes, but this does not alter 'perspective' which is photographically the relationship of objects to the main subject. This is proven with photos 3, 4, 5 as seen in this post on another forum...
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=7667313

Fair enough. So... what would you call it when a wide lens fattens a person and a tele slims them? does that not fall under the "height, width, depth" portion of perspective? If not, then what?

 

[cliveh]

The smaller format will give greater depth of field at the same aperture and standard focal length for the format.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Fair enough. So... what would you call it when a wide lens fattens a person and a tele slims them? does that not fall under the "height, width, depth" portion of perspective? If not, then what?

Both the lens and the camera position have changed. You are mixing apples with potato mashers.

 

[tomfrh]

Fair enough. So... what would you call it when a wide lens fattens a person and a tele slims them? does that not fall under the "height, width, depth" portion of perspective? If not, then what?

That is the effect of changing camera position. With a tele you stand further away.

A wide lens with a smaller film surface from a given position will have one perspective, keep everything the same but put a long lens and larger film surface in place, and compare the two side by side. There is a difference

I just did this test and I couldn't see any difference aside from resolution.

 

[Maris]

The smaller format will give greater depth of field at the same aperture and standard focal length for the format.

This would be true only if the word "aperture" were replaced by "relative aperture". For example my 8x10 camera with 300mm lens and my tiny Pentax with a 50mm lens give the same depth of field if the aperture is 3mm diameter. But the 8x10 is working at a relative aperture of f100 and the Pentax is working at a relative aperture of f16.

 

[Bill Burk]

I just did this test and I couldn't see any difference aside from resolution.

The additional detail can be sensed. I like to compare the visual difference as correlating to listening to a cassette at 1 7/8 versus listening to a reel-to-reel at 7 1/2 IPS. The high frequency sounds are like the fine detail in a print. It's a difference you can see::a difference you can hear.

Plus if you retouch negatives the larger format negatives are easier to retouch.

 

[Bill Burk]

This would be true only if the word "aperture" were replaced by "relative aperture". For example my 8x10 camera with 300mm lens and my tiny Pentax with a 50mm lens give the same depth of field if the aperture is 3mm diameter. But the 8x10 is working at a relative aperture of f100 and the Pentax is working at a relative aperture of f16.

Yes I agree you have to compare arrangements with similar depth of field.

 

[tomfrh]

The additional detail can be sensed

Yes I agree - the extra size/resolution gives the image a different quality.

My original question however was what else is there aside from resolution. People claim there are fundamental optical differences across formats. Here's an example of the sort of claim I was originally talking about:


https://www.google.com.au/amp/gizmo...gorgeous-its-about-more-than-r-1601938278/amp

 

[alfu]

http://www.adox.de/Photo/adox-films-2/cms-20-ii-adotech-ii/

 

[Vaughn]

...Here's an example of the sort of claim I was originally talking about:
https://www.google.com.au/amp/gizmo...gorgeous-its-about-more-than-r-1601938278/amp

Actually, it just sounds like the author is saying that a 50mm lens produces an image (or sees) like a 50mm lens, no matter what format is used.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Do not believe everything you see on the internet.

 

[tomfrh]

Actually, it just sounds like the author is saying that a 50mm lens produces an image (or sees) like a 50mm lens, no matter what format is used.

Yes he's saying that. He's saying a 50mm on 6x7 looks different to a 24mm on 35mm, despite both having similar field of view. He says a 50mm provides normal perspective, and a 24mm is a warped perspective. Hence the 50mm on 6x7 gives you wide coverage with a "natural" normal pespective, which he claims is impossible in 35mm since you need to use a warpy 24mm to get the same coverage.

I believe he's confused about perspective (perspective is a function of subject distance not focal length), however it's a good example of someone arguing that the different between larger and smaller formats is more than just resolution. It's something I've heard a number of times.

 

[David T T]

...Here's an example of the sort of claim I was originally talking about:


https://www.google.com.au/amp/gizmo...gorgeous-its-about-more-than-r-1601938278/amp

A lot of misinformation right there!

 

[tomfrh]

A lot of misinformation right there!

Yes it's fairly confused. However I've heard similar variants here and there over the years and wondered if there was some truth to the idea that different formats produce fundamentally different images.

 

[michr]

Perspective is caused by the distance from the camera, not the lens. It shouldn't be terribly difficult to compare photos shot on 6x7 vs. 35mm with field of view equivalent lenses, and with the camera in the same spot. What I anticipate one will see, is near identical perspectives. Wide-angle lenses allow us to stand closer to a subject and still take it all in. You can see the same effects with your own unaided eyes if you try.

But why discuss something that can be so clearly proven?

 

[tomfrh]

Michr, I agree with you and have now done such tests which show precisely that.

I originally asked as I kept reading about how bigger formats render reality with fundamentally superior optical/perspective qualities, and that it's not merely resolution. I wanted to know if that was really true or not.

 

[Bill Burk]

But why discuss something that can be so clearly proven?

So that you can know it is not necessary to carry separate cameras to get the shot you want. All you have to do is bring yourself to the spot. Then bring the camera and lens that you want... Given the amount of resolution and detail you want. In many cases people have found 35mm is sufficient.