A 70mm IMAX-sized digital cinema?

[Yousuf Abbasi]

This is like saying you can make a 2/3rds inch chip on an F900 look like Vista Vision if you monkey around with focal lengths, distance from lens, etc. I'm not interested in that. Give me the Vista Vision. And by the way, even if you try to fake it, it won't be the same. Anyone who's ever shot on an HVX200 knows that.

Tom, Yes- you can use lenses/etc, or "monkey around," to get 2/3 chip have similar angle of view and DOF as a larger format, given wide enough lenses etc. Obviously, the whole issue is resolution, it will look like shit and never really be vista vision. I get that. The other problem is with 2/3 cameras theres really a limited supply of lenses, so adapting workable lenses is an issue of itself, which creates more softness and BS.

With S35 cameras we have enough spectrum of lenses that its not the same issue. So the 2/3 analogy can only go so far.

Can you just give me one SPECIFIC example (other than FOV/DOF or resolution) about why a larger format is so unique?

 

[PatrickFaith]

Can you just give me one SPECIFIC example (other than FOV/DOF or resolution) about why a larger format is so unique?

Not sure if this is a valid analogy, but if I could be allowed to give a more "historical" answer, my first job was a payload specialist at skunkworks(i.e. i was within feet of the space telescope and worked in the high bays). The high end systems like 8kx8k 60 fps evans and sutherland type systems, most people don't get to play around with. Youself's question is very valid, since I also made a quick trip to the salt lake hansen dome recently to view the 4096 X 4096 resolution and 60 frames per second E&S system, but how many people have visited that and the content I saw didn't really take advantage of the technology.

Anyway ... I had a "normal" experience in a store that was the basically same (actually much better), then a 4k high fps system. I was walking into this store (it was a high end one), and I kept walking into it until I almost ran into a large mirror accidentally (which was reflecting things at a angle where i couldn't obviously see myself walking into the mirror [the mirror was extremely clean too]). When your above 5kx5k and above 90 fps with high luminosity... you get this "mirror" feel of COMPLETE IMMERSION. So people all ready have an experience of extremely high res & high fps & high luminosity systems ... basically large mirrors. I think a mirror analogy for extreme high res/fps/lumen has a strong story telling and a compelling immersion component which would bring people back into the theaters. So if people want a real example to decide if high res/fps/lumen theater would be compelling, all they need to do is look into a mirror ... and think if they could shoot like that, what would be the story telling opportunities. You btw need all three components to get this mirror feel (high lumen, high fps and high res).

 

[Mark Collins]

That movie looked absolutely phenomenal at a 70mm projection. It was incredible.

 

[Harrison Diamond]

Tom, Yes- you can use lenses/etc, or "monkey around," to get 2/3 chip have similar angle of view and DOF as a larger format, given wide enough lenses etc. Obviously, the whole issue is resolution, it will look like shit and never really be vista vision. I get that. The other problem is with 2/3 cameras theres really a limited supply of lenses, so adapting workable lenses is an issue of itself, which creates more softness and BS.

With S35 cameras we have enough spectrum of lenses that its not the same issue. So the 2/3 analogy can only go so far.

Can you just give me one SPECIFIC example (other than FOV/DOF or resolution) about why a larger format is so unique?

The biggest thing for me isn't DOF. usually by going up to the larger format you'll use a slower lens (e.g s16 a t1.3 is more common, t2 more with s35, 2.8 for larger etc. ).

The thing you can't change is that you're using a longer lens. For me the dead giveaway something is shot 2/3 or s16 vs. 35 is the perspective distortion. The larger the format the longer the focal length of the lens needed for the same FOV. This then means you get the opposite of wide angle distortion- telephoto compression. It changes the way the subject and background relate.

Its why I like to shoot medium and large format stills even disregarding the resolution. I've rarely needed more than 12mp from a still. But the way things are rendered on those formats is the draw.

Pick up a cheap 645, 6x6, or 6x7 online with a wide, normal, and long lens. Run a few rolls through it and shoot those same shots on s35. Give it a try and see if it connects with you.

I would buy an epic 645 or 6x7 in a heartbeat even if they were 6K.

 

[ERIC PECK]

I know it has been mentioned before in another thread (that I can't find), but, can anyone have the courtesy of telling me where in or around LA can I see The Dark Knight in real 70mm Imax?

 

[Yousuf Abbasi]

The biggest thing for me isn't DOF. usually by going up to the larger format you'll use a slower lens (e.g s16 a t1.3 is more common, t2 more with s35, 2.8 for larger etc. ).

The thing you can't change is that you're using a longer lens. For me the dead giveaway something is shot 2/3 or s16 vs. 35 is the perspective distortion. The larger the format the longer the focal length of the lens needed for the same FOV. This then means you get the opposite of wide angle distortion- telephoto compression. It changes the way the subject and background relate.

Its why I like to shoot medium and large format stills even disregarding the resolution. I've rarely needed more than 12mp from a still. But the way things are rendered on those formats is the draw.

Pick up a cheap 645, 6x6, or 6x7 online with a wide, normal, and long lens. Run a few rolls through it and shoot those same shots on s35. Give it a try and see if it connects with you.

I would buy an epic 645 or 6x7 in a heartbeat even if they were 6K.

Harrison- totally makes sense !

 

[Ron Reddick]

Ahh,

Would love 6x7, reuse my MF Mamiya glass, just need to perfect the bellows focus for it. And I still use my RZ Pro for stills, with Neg film and my trusty dark room. Some things are still better old school.

Ron

 

[Mitch Gross]

The biggest thing for me isn't DOF. usually by going up to the larger format you'll use a slower lens (e.g s16 a t1.3 is more common, t2 more with s35, 2.8 for larger etc. ).

The thing you can't change is that you're using a longer lens. For me the dead giveaway something is shot 2/3 or s16 vs. 35 is the perspective distortion. The larger the format the longer the focal length of the lens needed for the same FOV. This then means you get the opposite of wide angle distortion- telephoto compression. It changes the way the subject and background relate.

Its why I like to shoot medium and large format stills even disregarding the resolution. I've rarely needed more than 12mp from a still. But the way things are rendered on those formats is the draw.

Pick up a cheap 645, 6x6, or 6x7 online with a wide, normal, and long lens. Run a few rolls through it and shoot those same shots on s35. Give it a try and see if it connects with you.

I would buy an epic 645 or 6x7 in a heartbeat even if they were 6K.

This is completely correct and has always been the difference to me as to why one might choose to shoot in the different imager sizes. Back in the film days I argued this was the real difference between Super-35 extraction and anamorphic. Larger imaging area means longer lens choices which means greater compression. There are plenty of physical constraints which make it impractical if not impossible to simulate the effect on a smaller sensor camera.

 

[Steven Veldkamp]

The biggest thing for me isn't DOF. usually by going up to the larger format you'll use a slower lens (e.g s16 a t1.3 is more common, t2 more with s35, 2.8 for larger etc. ). The thing you can't change is that you're using a longer lens. For me the dead giveaway something is shot 2/3 or s16 vs. 35 is the perspective distortion. The larger the format the longer the focal length of the lens needed for the same FOV. This then means you get the opposite of wide angle distortion- telephoto compression. It changes the way the subject and background relate. Its why I like to shoot medium and large format stills even disregarding the resolution. I've rarely needed more than 12mp from a still. But the way things are rendered on those formats is the draw. Pick up a cheap 645, 6x6, or 6x7 online with a wide, normal, and long lens. Run a few rolls through it and shoot those same shots on s35. Give it a try and see if it connects with you.

Have tried the 4k phantom 65 yet? beautiful camera

 

[Shawn Nelson]

Even 65mm would be sufficient. It just feels awesome, even in more normal shots. You simply can't get that kind of close up distortion and background compression with 35mm. It's like having your cake and eating it too. Very painterly.

 

[Tim Hole]

Was talking about this today again...has nobody at RED mentioned the prospects of the 645 becoming a reality? Is it still on the cards at all?

Never say never, I guess...

 

[L. Langer]

All we know is that they had it down on paper years ago but that spec - going from what was kicked around back then - is pretty far above what RED has now and they have not uttered a single word regarding it for a very long time.

 

[Chuck Z]

Is there any decent 65mm glass out there? How old are the Zeiss Maxi PL primes? Or the Panavision System 65 lenses?

 

[Shawn Nelson]

Glass is the bigger deal. I love my RPPs and do not want to upgrade to FF35 cinema glass, not enough of a bump, unless it was FF35 2x anamorphics. For regular spherical I'd hope to head all the way to 65mm.

 

[Tim Hole]

Thanks for the update folks.