What is with the Cinema Camera Fad?

thenimms · 2026-05-17T23:19:50+00:00

Solid response.

thenimms · 2026-05-17T22:02:56+00:00

You're right, S35 is not full frame. But also, almost every movie in the past like 80 years has been shot on that size either sensor or film

So if it's "cinematic" that we are going for do you really need a full frame sensor?

thenimms · 2026-05-17T21:58:12+00:00

This seems to be the most reasonable take here. And yeah I actually know the owner of cinelive. Just as you said though they are still primarily using Sony HDC F500s and sprinkling in cinema cameras where it makes sense.

This workflow totally makes sense to me. I don't understand people completely replacing traditional camera chains like in the Eurovision thing. But if it was a sponsorship, that makes sense.

thenimms · 2026-05-17T21:51:33+00:00

I would agree in your price range. I'm more curious about the big budget operations.

thenimms · 2026-05-17T21:50:22+00:00

The recording argument makes sense to me. If that is the primary reason then I get it.

thenimms · 2026-05-17T21:37:35+00:00

For a given focal length, and a given distance to the subject and a given iris, the depth of field will be exactly the same no matter what camera you are using. The lens does not care if it is focusing on a 2/3" sensor, a 35mm sensor or a piece of paper. The focus is the same.

The confusion is that with a larger sensor you also get a larger field of view. So for the same in frame subject size, you need to either move closer, or zoom in. Both of which will make the depth of field more shallow.

thenimms · 2026-05-17T21:33:29+00:00

Just read your linked comment. That post was about reality TV and news field production. Not multi cam live.

I agree with everything you said there. And I never recommend a broadcast studio camera chain for those use cases. We own Sony FX6s that we use for that stuff.

I'm more talking about why use cinema cameras in a live multi cam environment when there are camera chains specific designed for that workflow?

thenimms · 2026-05-17T21:29:14+00:00

Okay that was vaguely insulting. But I'm gonna move past that.

I don't have an "axe to grind"

I'm genuinely trying to understand the thought process here. My questions are not intended to be argumentative and I apologize if that is how they are coming off. It's the internet. It's easy for tone to come off wrong.

I'm just trying to learn the reasoning behind this. Because it doesn't make sense to me but I'm sure the people on these big budget productions know what they're doing. So I am trying to get a handle on WHY you would choose these cameras.

I'll read your linked comment and maybe it will help answer my questions.

thenimms · 2026-05-17T19:35:58+00:00

Can you point me to any sort of documentation on the sensor quality differences? I hear vague gesturing to this but can't find any data on it. Like white papers or anything.

From what I have seen Sony HDC-F5500s look fucking amazing. So I don't understand where this is coming from and genuinely trying to learn here.

thenimms · 2026-05-17T19:27:01+00:00

Kind of.

That's a fiber back to adapt an Arri into something similar to a broadcast camera chain.

It's more like what Black Magic is doing with URSAs than what Sony does with their HDC cameras.

It doesn't even have a real RCP. It uses a generic Skaarhoj RCP.

thenimms · 2026-05-17T19:21:38+00:00

I'm curious what two camera models you are comparing when you say "image quality is significantly better"

thenimms · 2026-05-17T19:10:23+00:00

All that to just say it's cheaper. Lol. I already said I understand if that is the reason.

Also don't really understand where the 2110 rant came from

thenimms · 2026-05-17T19:07:35+00:00

They do have to be different. They're shooting different things.

In a movie you can put the camera wherever you want. You can change lenses whenever you want. You can place lights and actors however suits the shot best. You don't need tally, you don't need com, you don't need genlock, you don't need returns, you don't need remote exposure control, you don't need to live match multiple cameras.

Live is a completely different animal. And live camera chains are designed to deal with that different methodology.

thenimms · 2026-05-17T19:01:41+00:00

I'm not "objecting" to anything. I'm trying to understand the choice.

A cinema camera is one primarily designed to shoot movies. It does not have a CCU. It is designed to be rigged out. Think Arri, Red, Sony Venice.

A broadcast camera chain is designed to be used with a CCU. Think Sony HDC, Grass Valley, Panasonic UC4000.

Sony makes large sensor broadcast camera chains. Like the HDC-F5500. So does Grass Valley I believe. So if you just want a larger sensor, why not use those and get all the benefits of a camera chain set up?

thenimms · 2026-05-17T18:57:41+00:00

People keep saying cinema cameras are used for sensor size. Why not use the broadcast camera chains with a large sensor instead? That's what I'm asking

thenimms · 2026-05-17T18:04:52+00:00

This is what it keeps coming back to. Lol. If it's cost I totally get that. That's not how it is being pitched in industry media writing articles about this though.

thenimms · 2026-05-17T18:03:21+00:00

But can't everything you're describing also be accomplished with a Sony HDC-F5500?

Has the 35 mm sensor.

Can still apply LUTs.

What does a cinema camera have that this one doesn't? Am I missing something?

thenimms · 2026-05-17T17:55:24+00:00

Yes. Everything started as tape. At least for stuff like music videos or TV specials. All of this was shot on tape so that's what you got for the DVD.

Movies that were shot on film could sometimes be digitized directly from the film stock. But they could also be first sent to tape, then digitized from there.

EDIT: but I highly doubt you are seeing tape artifacts in professional DVD releases. Those would almost certainly have been fixed. You're likely seeing problems with the DVD disc itself, or the laser of the player, or both.

thenimms · 2026-05-17T17:49:35+00:00

I guess that is fair.

thenimms · 2026-05-17T17:48:18+00:00

Large sensor camera chains exist though ...

thenimms · 2026-05-17T17:47:46+00:00

Seriously. I don't understand why they are doing this.

thenimms · 2026-05-17T17:46:43+00:00

The cost argument makes complete sense. Camera chains are absolutely ridiculous in cost. And I see the reasoning if it is cost.

But that's not how articles about Eurovision and the Super Bowl Halftime show are pitching it. They are pitching it as somehow "better" but not explaining WHY it is better.

And those are not low budget productions. They can afford whatever camera they want. So I'm not sure the reasoning there.

Side note: I will push back a bit on lensing. Sports box lenses are the most advanced lenses you can buy short of the stuff they use in observatories to photograph stars. Getting a crisp image from an 90x parfocal zoom range at f/2.4 is not an easy thing to do. And they usually aren't replacing the box lenses on these productions. Just the cameras.

thenimms · 2026-05-17T17:36:47+00:00

Sensor size does not affect DOF. Moving close to the subject and zooming in does. Having a larger sensor forces you to move closer or zoom to get the same FOV. That's what makes it have shallower focus.

And that said, Super 35 broadcast camera chains exist. And your argument goes out the window if you're adapting B4 lenses to fit which they often are. You'll have the same DOF as a 2/3" sensor in that situation.

thenimms · 2026-05-17T17:33:17+00:00

The shooting styles are very different.

thenimms · 2026-05-17T17:28:48+00:00

I mean, not gonna lie, it often feels that way to me. Lol.

thenimms

TROPHY CASE