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 :)

When Shooting Film, does the 645 waste more area (% wise) than the S35?

L

lynx

Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Hi,

We're looking to shoot a film next year, and I was debating which EPIC line would be best suited for our needs. Since we're going to end up on HD (which has a ratio of 16/9 = 1.78, I was curious about which Sensor size (S35 or FF35 or 645) would be the most efficient (cost and other considerations aside).

The S35 is 30/15mm = 2
The FF35 is 36/24mm = 1.5
The 645 is 56/42mm = 1.33

The closest to 1.78 is the S35's Aspect Ratio.

Does this mean that if we use the 645, we would be "wasting" the most Image Area as a percentage of the sensor?

Thanks.

Lynx
 
For efficiency probably shoot S35 in quad HD 16:9 mode, 3840h x 2160v. If you are finishing HD you don't need more than 4x HD resolution originals to deal with.
 
Unless you plan on using medium format lenses with the 645 there is going to be a large crop factor anyways. The only reason I would go for FF35 is if you really need that ~extra stop of dynamic range. S35 sounds like it makes the most sense for you.
 
Three Additional Stops in going from S35 to FF35... That's Amazing!!

Given our emphasis, I guess it's certainly worth considering the switch...

Are the Lenses on the FF35 much larger and heavier than the S35?

And in terms of Dynamic Range, what is the difference in going from the S35 to the 645?

Thanks in advance for your reply.
 
You can shoot S35 cine lenses on FF 35, you would still crop to 4k or QHD to get the right format for HD.
 
No, the original Epic/Scarlet brochure did indeed list it. It is not speculation. Don't take my word for it though, search the forum.
 
f***! I too missed that one. Also s35 is a 2:1 sensor. You may prefer cropping from the bottom rather than the sides (then again you might not give a sh**).
 
The obvious thing here is anamorphic use. You shoot 645 with a 2x anamorphic squeeze and you'll get a 2.66:1 aspect ratio that you can either shave down to 2.35:1 or 2.40:1 or leave as-is. Now then, that said...uh...I'm not sure where you'd get the lenses. The only anamorphic 65mm lenses I know of were for the Ultra Panavision format and they were only a 1.25x squeeze (which would get you a 1.66:1 aspect ratio with 645), but good luck finding those lenses. Less than a dozen movies were shot using that process and the last ones were shot around the time I was born.

However, if someone...maybe even RED...decided to build a set of anamorphic lenses for this mount it would be a monster. ISCO is supposed to be building some new 1.33x and 2x rear-of-lens anamorphic adapters that might do the job, but it's hard to say.

lynx said:
Hi,

We're looking to shoot a film next year, and I was debating which EPIC line would be best suited for our needs. Since we're going to end up on HD (which has a ratio of 16/9 = 1.78, I was curious about which Sensor size (S35 or FF35 or 645) would be the most efficient (cost and other considerations aside).

The S35 is 30/15mm = 2
The FF35 is 36/24mm = 1.5
The 645 is 56/42mm = 1.33

The closest to 1.78 is the S35's Aspect Ratio.

Does this mean that if we use the 645, we would be "wasting" the most Image Area as a percentage of the sensor?

Thanks.

Lynx
Click to expand...
 
What if you shoot S35 cropped Monstro FF35? Do you only get 1 extra stop?

There was a big discussion about how it was sensor size not pixel size that mattered. I assume Monstro is slightly more advanced so it gets 1 more stop. But what sort of DnR loss are we looking at by shooting s35 on monstro?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top