35mm frame size

U

USLatin

Panamaniac
I am looking at some still cameras, the Canon D5 and the Nikon D90. I looked at the sensor dimensions and they are different. The D5 is 35.8 x 23.9 mm and the D90 is 23.6 x 15.8 mm.

I guess the D5 would have much shallower DoF...

What is the size of S35 mm for motion pictures?
 
After a little research, according to Wikipedia's article on film formats, Super 35's gate dimensions are 0.980" x 0.735" which translates to 24.892 mm x 18.669 mm. Also according to Wikipedia, the D90 is not considered a full frame camera.

It appears that "35mm" in the still photography world is not exactly the same as "35mm" in motion picture film world. In still photography, full frame 35mm means the frame is actually 35mm wide. In the motion picture world, 35 is simply the gauge or width of the film, including the perfs which aren't exposed in the image.

I didn't know this before I just now read up on it. You learn something new everyday.
 
Last edited:
so the D90 is close and the D5 is full frame still 35mm... I guess the D90 will then have a little less DoF than S35mm motion picture film but very close, probably hard to notice at all, but the D5 should have significantly shallower DoF.

Thanks.. I looked it up but my head started spinning a bit. Hare you 100% about that? I am going to try to advice someone on still cameras tomorrow. Not a big deal but please let me know if you have any doubts... my head ain't working any more tonight.
 
Well, that's all I got from the articles I read. I'm not 100% sure, because according to that, my Rebel XTi has a frame just a hair smaller than Super 35. It doesn't seem like it's DoF is that of 35mm film. Then again, the stock lens only stops down to an f/3.5 at it's shortest focal length, and only 5.6 at it's longest, so maybe that's why I don't usually see very shallow DoF with it.
 
It's the standard 18-55 zoom lens that comes with the Rebel XTi. So at 18, it'll open up to 3.5 and at 55 it only opens up to 5.6.
 
Last edited:
yea the 5D is crazy shallow.....

_MG_0700.JPG


Thats at F4.0.... imagine a 85mm @ F1.2......
 
joeloud said:
It appears that "35mm" in the still photography world is not exactly the same as "35mm" in motion picture film world.
Click to expand...
The film is the same, but it's used differently. In still photography the film runs sideways through the camera (sprockets on the top and bottom), so the 24mm between the sprockets is used for the picture height. Still photography uses 8 perforations worth of width of the film per picture, so your frame size is approx. 36mm x 24mm.

In cinema, the film runs through the camera vertically, so the 24mm between the sprockets becomes the frame width. In 4x3 the full frame then becomes 24mm x 18mm. That uses about 4 perforations of film per frame.
 
Thanks for the additional info Barry. I guess then if 24mm 18mm is a 4:3 motion picture frame then a 16:9 will be right about the size of the D90's sensor, making me think that that's probable exactly what the D90 uses.

Joeloud, that makes a lot of sense, 55mm at 5.6f shouldn't be that shallow at all. Thank you for the info.

Tim, I guess with such a big sensor and only 12.8 million pixels (effective) it might be un-usable at something like 85mm 2.0f. Of course there are uses, and stils are a million times easier to focus. But my point is that you should be able to use significantly smaller apertures and still get a ton of sensitivity... each pixel must be much bigger.

I think the D90 is all I would need... and I am really liking that Nikon feature for automatic CA correction. It still shoots RAW + Jpeg, plenty big resolution, plenty big sensor size and a sick ass LCD with live view!

It may not be considered pro, probably because it isn't a full still frame camera..? I don't see what else it might be misssing otherwise..? Does anyone know why it falls under the dreaded "pro-sumer" category?
 
Here's a shot of a 35mm negative:
DSCF0128-1.jpg


With movie film, the wide screen could be one of several ways:

DSCF0125.jpg


DSCF0127.jpg


Technical specifications for 35 mm film are standardized by SMPTE.
  • 16 frames per foot (0.748 in (19 mm) per frame (long pitch))
  • 24 frames per second (frame/s); 90 feet (27 m) per minute. 1,000 feet (300 m) is about 11 minutes at 24 frame/s.
  • vertical pulldown
  • 4 perforations per frame (all projection and most origination excepting 3-perf)
35 mm spherical[39]

  • 1.37:1 A.R. on camera negative; 1.85:1 and 1.66:1 are hard or soft matted over this
  • camera aperture: 0.866 by 0.630 in (22 by 16 mm)
  • projector aperture (full 1.37:1): 0.825 by 0.602 in (21 by 15 mm)
  • projector aperture (1.66:1): 0.825 by 0.497 in (21 by 13 mm)
  • projector aperture (1.85:1): 0.825 by 0.446 in (21 by 11 mm)
  • TV station aperture: 0.816 by 0.612 in (21 by 16 mm)
  • TV transmission: 0.792 by 0.594 in (20 by 15 mm)
  • TV safe action: 0.713 by 0.535 in (18 by 14 mm); corner radii: 0.143 in (3.6 mm)
  • TV safe titles: 0.630 by 0.475 in (16 by 12 mm); corner radii: 0.125 in (3.2 mm)
Super 35 mm film[39]

  • 4:3 A.R. on camera negative
  • camera aperture: 0.980" by 0.735"
  • picture used (35 mm anamorphic): 0.945 in (24.00 mm) by 0.394 in (10.00 mm)
  • picture used (70 mm blowup): 0.945 in (24.00 mm) by 0.430 in (10.92 mm)
  • picture used (35 mm flat 1.85): 0.945 in (24.00 mm) by 0.511 in (12.97 mm)
35 mm anamorphic[39]

  • 2.39:1 A.R., from a 1.19:1 frame with a 2× horizontal squeeze
  • camera aperture: 0.866 in (22.00 mm) by 0.732 in (18.59 mm)
  • projector aperture: 0.825 in (20.96 mm) by 0.690 in (17.53 mm)
Click to expand...
Picture1-3.png


Bob Diaz
 
Last edited:
USLatin said:
Tim, I guess with such a big sensor and only 12.8 million pixels (effective) it might be un-usable at something like 85mm 2.0f. Of course there are uses, and stils are a million times easier to focus. But my point is that you should be able to use significantly smaller apertures and still get a ton of sensitivity... each pixel must be much bigger.
Click to expand...

WEll the sensitivity of the camera isnt like that of video. theres no base line. Theres just its performance at certain predetermined ISO's. HOwever you can say the camera is "cleaner" when its 800 ISO is much less noisy than another cameras 800 ISO, therefore it becomes useable, and you can now stop down to compensate for the added sensitivity.

But in Still you certainly can use an 85 @ F1.2. you getting focus once. and your model is usually still. So Super shallow DOF isnt an issue. though the difference here being when using flash photography, youre lit to an F11 Usually any way. You can do that with $300 flash unit... you dont need $35,000 HMI units in still. So it really doesnt matter... Youre never shoting wide open unless its at night with no flash...
 
TimurCivan said:
WEll the sensitivity of the camera isnt like that of video. theres no base line. Theres just its performance at certain predetermined ISO's. HOwever you can say the camera is "cleaner" when its 800 ISO is much less noisy than another cameras 800 ISO, therefore it becomes useable, and you can now stop down to compensate for the added sensitivity.

But in Still you certainly can use an 85 @ F1.2. you getting focus once. and your model is usually still. So Super shallow DOF isnt an issue. though the difference here being when using flash photography, youre lit to an F11 Usually any way. You can do that with $300 flash unit... you dont need $35,000 HMI units in still. So it really doesnt matter... Youre never shoting wide open unless its at night with no flash...
Click to expand...

That's basically what I tried to say. I wonder how high you can set the ISO to get a clean 8x10 300dpi print under normal indoor lighting. (average living room at night)

Do you know why the D90 isn't considered a professional camera? Anything in particular?
 
USLatin said:
Do you know why the D90 isn't considered a professional camera? Anything in particular?
Click to expand...
It's not that it isn't a professional camera, it's just that it isn't "full frame." I'd consider my Rebel XTi a professional camera, simply because it's a DSLR with interchangeable lenses, but it's dipping down into the "prosumer" realm.
 
Yea, and the images that it produces are nothing short of professional... I guess maybe the thought could be that without a full frame you can't control DoF to your liking unless you have very fast lenses... right?

Man... this is tempting me so badly... :D
 
Last edited:
I guess an other difference for the "pro" cameras is the auto focus... since so many of the pros are journalist photographers, event photographers, etc... the D300 has a 51 point AF system, whereas the D90 "only" looks at 11 points. Then again it must have bee not long ago when 11 points was the bomb diggity... and again, so much of the quality and versatility rides on the lenses you have available...

thanks to everyone that posted!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top