a little math
- Thread starter kurt1111
- Start date
photonashville
Well-known member
Yes, 14mm for HD video and 28mm for vertical stills. The Panasonic 14-42mm is cheap and will do the job, basic kit lens. Otherwise, 14mm lenses get expensive from 35mm still camera systems.
Last edited:
A little math it is:
In an horizontal framing (video footage) at eyes level you would need around 15.48mm, that would mean the head and the feet would be touching the framing.
6'1" at 10 feet at eye level represents roughly a 37.47º vertical field of view, hypothesizing that GH2 and GH1 sensors with their multi-aspect ratio maintains the diagonal size of the projected image on the sensor of 21.6mm in movie mode, it would mean that the height of the active area in 16:9 mode is around 10.5mm.
To spare you to the math of converting those 37.47º to focal length on a 10.5mm size I present you the magic of wolframalpha:
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?....***AngleOfView.alphaH-.*AngleOfView.w---.*--
So yes ... a 14mm lens would be good...
In an horizontal framing (video footage) at eyes level you would need around 15.48mm, that would mean the head and the feet would be touching the framing.
6'1" at 10 feet at eye level represents roughly a 37.47º vertical field of view, hypothesizing that GH2 and GH1 sensors with their multi-aspect ratio maintains the diagonal size of the projected image on the sensor of 21.6mm in movie mode, it would mean that the height of the active area in 16:9 mode is around 10.5mm.
To spare you to the math of converting those 37.47º to focal length on a 10.5mm size I present you the magic of wolframalpha:
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?....***AngleOfView.alphaH-.*AngleOfView.w---.*--
So yes ... a 14mm lens would be good...