Viscount Omega

I think people use the terms "full-frame sensor" and "full-frame lens" and "full-frame look" and "APS-C lens/look" and "APS-C sensor" etc. interchangeably because sometimes you can't use one without the other. Strictly speaking, the sensor is just the method of capture. I don't think it has anything to do with the "look", per se.

Interesting thread, similar to a discussion I had on another forum where I posited an alternate theory that maybe what some people are seeing regarding a different "look" between formats is not related to depth of field but rather a slightly different perspective due to different capture angles--this being due to the different-sized lens image circles being used. Simply put, a larger lens image circle "eye" sees things in a slightly different perspective than a smaller lens image circle "eye". (The sensor and camera's processor being the "brain".) Of course I have no way to scientifically measure perspective. So, there's that... It's a similar concept to what these two camera guy's are talking about in this discussion from here: http://cinematography.net/edited-pages/[cml]%20Anamorphic%20or%20Super%2035.htm Here's the discussion: "It seems to me that there is more of a difference between Anamorphic and Super 35mm 2.35 films looks than can be explained by either the distortions inherent in anamorphic taking lenses or the depth of field. They seem to render things in a much more dimensional way. I shoot frequently with anamorphics ( I own a russian set ) and whenever I investigate doing a project in Super 35, I put up the lenses, look through the finder and instantly feel somewhat disappointed with what I see. Hypothetically say you shot with a: 50mm anamorphic at T8-5.6 and a 24mm flat prime lens at T2 in the super 35mm 2.35 format both focused at 10 feet. The lenses / formats would produce a very similar horizontal and vertical field of view. The depth of field would also be very similar. Would these images be nearly identical? I know that those might not be any ones real world stops for the same scene... But what would account for any differences?" "The perspective will not be the same. The angles may match but your relationship (the cameras relationship) to the angle will not be the same. That is to say, if you picture a wedge representing your field of view, in the anamorphic scenario you will be further inside of the wedge than in the non anamorphic. In the non anamorphic you will be closer to the 'point' of the wedge. Therefore the sense of peripheral vision as will not be the same. Some would argue that this is why anamorphic looks more natural or realistic than non anamorphic." ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I'm well aware anamorphic lenses are different animals from sphericals, but is it possible for two spherical lenses to share the same field of view, have different sized image circles and have slightly different perspectives? "Further inside of the wedge or closer to the point" etc.. If not, why not?