Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Super 35mm Full Frame?

C

cinemano

Banned
Joined
Jan 15, 2008
Messages
376
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Hello

I noticed the sensor on the RED is 24.4×13.7mm which is smaller than a full frame of 35mm film or digital of 24X36mm... and definitely smaller than Super35mm... so why is it called Super35 frame sensor?

Its more like my non-full frame Nikon D80 which is 23.6 x 15.8

Just curious, not a very technical guy am I.. :wacko:
 
Still frame 35mm cameras run the film horizontally, for a 36x24 mm frame.
Motion picture (Cine) cameras run the film vertically, with various frame sizes depending on aspect ratio, but none are wider than the width of the film inside the sprocket holes, about 25 mm.* Red is a cine camera, so it refers to the 35mm motion picture frame where the S35 apertures are various crops of a frame that is 24.89 mm by 18.67 mm.

Further reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/35_mm_film

*except for Vistavision, which runs the film horizontally like a still camera, but that format is not in common use. And IMAX, but of course that's not 35mm film.
 
A Common Misconception

A Common Misconception

People are most accustomed to thinking & talking about 35mm film in terms of still photography and like jbeale said, it's a bit different in regards to motion picture film (horizontal vs vertical alignment). The whole digital still market, with their various "full frame" and "non-full frame" sensors, has thrown people for a loop and so, has added to the confusion.

Much is the same in regards to crop factor vs focal lengths on these "non-full frame" sensors, when the real issue at hand is the change in "angle of view" because the physical image and depth of field remain the same.

The one question that has always perplexed me was "Is the angle of view from 35mm motion picture lens, say 85mm, equal to that of a 85mm still lens?" I've never thought to test it, but am curious to know. I figure it is, since a lot of motion picture lens are just remounted still lens, but that added lens at the back of the PL mount begs the question.

cheers
- liam
 
Thanks for the help. jbeale is correct.

An 18mm lens on a cine camera (S35mm) is about the equivalent field of view to a 28mm lens on a full frame still camera. And an S35mm cine frame is about the same as an APS size still camera.

Our new 18-85mm zoom is similar to a 28-130mm full frame still zoom... roughly without my calculator.

Jim
 
FractureD said:
The one question that has always perplexed me was "Is the angle of view from 35mm motion picture lens, say 85mm, equal to that of a 85mm still lens?" I've never thought to test it, but am curious to know. I figure it is, since a lot of motion picture lens are just remounted still lens, but that added lens at the back of the PL mount begs the question.

cheers
- liam
Click to expand...

Angle of View is a function of (dependent on) format size and focal length, nothing else. If the focal length stays the same, say 85mm in your example, then it is dependent solely on the format size. Yes, if you are talking about two different format sizes, then you have two different angles of view. Well, make it six depending on whether you want to measure it horizontally, vertically or diagonally.

There is a good article in Wikipedia about this subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_of_view

Hope it helps.
 
Great resources guys, I completely forgot the Red FAQ Gnomer.

Thanks for the help, it's been way too long since I've last had to think about this stuff. Better start doing some more homework. :-)
 
5_1184983969.jpg


From the FAQ.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #9
Wow.. thanks Brook :) Picture is a thousand words.. diagrams a million!
 
I think that Nikon 35mm is mislabeled that should be Nikon 1.5x crop and Nikon has their own full frame digital.
 
Michael Grugal said:
I think that Nikon 35mm is mislabeled that should be Nikon 1.5x crop and Nikon has their own full frame digital.
Click to expand...

"Nikon 35mm" or "N35mm" is the name that Nikon gave that format when it was introduced.

Admittedly, the image needs to be updated to remove the 1080p format and add the 3K format.
 
Those are great visual examples!
Really helps to see the differences between format sizes.

You could add, just for grins :) , and Hasselblad's H3DII Digital Medium Format sizes.
It's HUGE! 36.7mm X 49mm (5412×7212 pixels)!
Makes me wonder if IMAX will ever be able to go digital in my lifetime. :D
 
Okay. So it's the whole vertical versus horizontal thing. So if 35mm motion film was a 2:3 aspect ratio as apposed to a 4:3, 1.85:1 or 3:2 it would be at the same size as a 35mm still film? Just "tall-screen" instead.
 
I think that the comparison of frame sizes in the FAQ needs to be corrected. The 2/3" sensor should be smaller, not about equal in size, to Super 16mm.*

2/3": 9.6 x 5.4 mm
S16: 12.5 x 7.4 mm

A video sensor about the size of Super16 is the 1" format (13.9 x 7.8), but I don't know if anyone makes such a sensor.

References
Size of 2/3" video sensor (see p.4, the 2nd size for 2/3". There are two: one for 4:3 and one for 16:9)
Size of Super 16mm
Nice graphic comparison of several formats

* Yes, video sensors are smaller than their namesakes, because it was the measure of the diagonal of the cathode ray tubes, not the actual imaging area, in the olden days when cameras used tubes.
 
More smaller:

2100_1207930548.png


I think the chart is beautiful, by the way, don't get me wrong. And it's pretty close. But especially since the 2/3" HD cameras are competitors to Red, I thought it would be worth it -- when you have time -- to match it closer to reality.
 
Every shape on that diagram was built to scale using specifications from manufacturers. Perhaps I chose the wrong 2/3" sensor... but that shape on there is exactly as some manufacturer described their chip. I wish I could remember who... I made it roughly a year ago.

I have the PSD back at home. Maybe when I get back from Vegas I'll see about updating it.
 
Brook Willard said:
Every shape on that diagram was built to scale using specifications from manufacturers. Perhaps I chose the wrong 2/3" sensor... but that shape on there is exactly as some manufacturer described their chip. I wish I could remember who... I made it roughly a year ago.

I have the PSD back at home. Maybe when I get back from Vegas I'll see about updating it.
Click to expand...

You working the Red booth again? How do you get such a sweet gig?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top