View Poll Results: Now or waiting?

Voters
27. You may not vote on this poll
  • S35mm [as techie penitents]

    24 88.89%
  • 35mm [as wi(l)der as possible]

    3 11.11%
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456
Results 51 to 57 of 57
  1. Collapse Details
    #51
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Brighton, England
    Posts
    4
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen Williams
    Hi Barry,

    Many people shoot 3 perf for 1:1.85, this will almost always be S35 as will almost any production that will use a DI.

    Stephen
    Just a quick question:

    My understanding was that 3-perf and S35 were completely separate standards - is it common to refer to 3-perf as "S35" as the horizontal coverage (and therefore necessary lens coverage) is the same, even though the gate is different?

    Just wanting to check my jargon database is debugged!


     

  2. Collapse Details
    #52
    Default
    S35 typically refers to the width of the frame -- as in, does it extend fully from perf to perf, or is there some space reserved for the optical soundtrack?

    3-perf refers to the height of the frame. Since moving to the 1.85:1 standard, at least 25% of the film used is completely wasted. So 3-perf does away with the wasted "letterbox" areas of the film.

    3-perf can be done on normal or S35 apertures, but not in 4:3. S35 is typically used as a substitute for anamorphic, so the wider image area is combined with about 2.5 perfs of height to get a 2.35:1 aspect ratio.

    There's also 2-perf, which is actually 2.66:1. Used to be called TechniScope, and was used to shoot lots of 70's widescreen movies like American Graffiti and Sergio Leone's spaghetti westerns. 2-perf uses half the film stock (and obviously half the developing costs) of normal 4-perf (whether 1.85 or anamorphic).


     

  3. Collapse Details
    #53
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry_Green
    3-perf can be done on normal or S35 apertures, but not in 4:3. S35 is typically used as a substitute for anamorphic, so the wider image area is combined with about 2.5 perfs of height to get a 2.35:1 aspect ratio.

    There's also 2-perf, which is actually 2.66:1. Used to be called TechniScope, and was used to shoot lots of 70's widescreen movies like American Graffiti and Sergio Leone's spaghetti westerns. 2-perf uses half the film stock (and obviously half the developing costs) of normal 4-perf (whether 1.85 or anamorphic).
    Hi Barry,

    3 perf was originally used for US TV with a Big TV ground glass so it has been used 4:3.

    With Modern cameras 3 perf would be S35 as standard, for older cameras recentering the lens can be an issue so 3 perf N35 can exist.

    With 2 perf there is no advantage (other than reframing) for going S35 as the final release is 2.35:1 Anamorphic

    Stephen


     

  4. Collapse Details
    #54
    Cross-Examiner Emanuel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    4,665
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen Williams
    Quote Originally Posted by Antoine_Fabi
    That's what i read in some litterature...

    Some people say that S16 lenses resolve more info per square inch than 35mm lenses because they're made for smaller target image.

    ...but is it true ? hmmm....

    ...so if this is true, why would not a manufacturer give equivalent glass quality for 35mm ? better is better ? 35mm or 16mm or whatever the target...
    Hi Antoine,

    That is true, and the reason that S16 lenses (& HD lenses) are so expensive. A S16 lens has to resolve more than twice the amount of a 35mm lens shooting 35mm to have equal performance on a big screen.

    That is the reason I own 35mm equipment & not 16mm, I can't afford to own top S16 lenses!

    The very latest glass from Zeiss is probably as good as it will get, both 35mm + HD.

    Stephen
    So, can we infer any N35mm movie lens can perform better than any 35mm still lens? (considering the larger format of the latter one?)
    RED ONE @home
    #111
    Emanuel & Co's RED ONE
    #647
    RED ZOOM LENSES
    #156
    #157
    RED 300mm LENS
    #82
    Who am I?

    * LINK *
    ** IMDb **


     

  5. Collapse Details
    #55
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Emanuel
    So, can we infer any N35mm movie lens can perform better than any 35mm still lens? (considering the larger format of the latter one?)
    Hi Emanuel,

    They probably will. Without a back to back test I can't prove it, the differences may be small.

    Still lenses are often much sharper in the middle, with motion picture lenses the area of greatest sharpness tends to be a larger area around the centre where the most important part of the image will fall.

    Stephen


     

  6. Collapse Details
    #56
    Senior Member evinsky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Hollywood, California
    Posts
    977
    Default
    Most modern still lenses have been developed for digital cameras as well so they have some distinct advantages over 80s or 90s era cinema glass. Of course focusing and iris control will be harder though.
    Always beg forgiveness, not permission! http://www.evingrant.com http://www.evingrantdp.com http://www.evingrantphoto.com
    RED #199
    HVX #69


     

  7. Collapse Details
    #57
    Cross-Examiner Emanuel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    4,665
    Default
    Good points Evin. I didn't yet think about it! And thank you Stephen, as usual. Nice hint.
    RED ONE @home
    #111
    Emanuel & Co's RED ONE
    #647
    RED ZOOM LENSES
    #156
    #157
    RED 300mm LENS
    #82
    Who am I?

    * LINK *
    ** IMDb **


     

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •