Edith blazek Posted June 3 Posted June 3 Alright, some people on Reddit have been keeping tabs on a 65mm sensor block for the Sony Venice for like a month now and now with alleged leaks and hearsay from being at trade shows, does anyone here have anything to add to this? I know there's the 17k but I think this would be far better in extreme low light like the Venice 2 was and they're neck and neck pixel sharpness wise and I think it'd be great to have a non raw option in this arena which neither the Alexa 65/265 or ursa cube 17k offer at the moment, and if the picture indicates anything, also internal nds that isn't just external slots that you have to change by hand.
Edith blazek Posted June 3 Author Posted June 3 And it's 8 perf 65mm, now that was not what I was expecting...
Premium Member Tyler Purcell Posted June 4 Premium Member Posted June 4 Yea making a bigger imager camera makes sense, but making it 3:2 is unexpected for sure. I read that earlier today and was kinda dumbfounded. So they want to use large format anamorphic lenses or crop to wide screen? Kinda makes no sense.
Geffen Avraham Posted June 4 Posted June 4 Ever since Linus Sandgren shot First Man's moonwalk scene in IMAX, I've been wanting a camera like this to be able to film a more authentic version someday. Sandgren did a great job, but I would have really wanted to film with the original, extremely rare Biogon 60mm f5.6 that was used on the lunar surface, and Ektachrome as used on Apollo. There's good reasons why he couldn't do that on a regular IMAX camera - they already needed to make new brighter light fixtures to light up that quarry at night for the moonwalk scene, and Ektachrome + an f5.6 lens would have made it impossible. Besides, that lens is designed for medium-format rangefinders, and cannot be used with a mirror shutter. And modern Ektachrome isn't the same emulsion as was used in the 60s. With this new camera, all of these problems could have been addressed. The Biogon would fit, the high ISO would compensate for the lower speed, and a show LUT could be designed based on the original 60s Ektachrome emulsion. Furthermore, the 3:2 aspect ratio would be far more authentic to the square 6x6 Apollo photographs than a widescreen Alexa 65 or Ursa 17k.
Edith blazek Posted June 4 Author Posted June 4 2 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said: Yea making a bigger imager camera makes sense, but making it 3:2 is unexpected for sure. I read that earlier today and was kinda dumbfounded. So they want to use large format anamorphic lenses or crop to wide screen? Kinda makes no sense. I'm of the opinion that within a certain class of sensor size, going taller is better and I think what they're doing here is great as you can easily crop down to 5 perf anyways. I think it also has a leg up on the Alexa 265 as it can do 4k super 35 if you needed it, and it probably has better low light than the ursa cine 17k and compared to both it can be made small with the rialto.
Edith blazek Posted June 5 Author Posted June 5 From this angle, it looks like it's going to have the nd filter slot type system that the rialto mini has
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted June 5 Premium Member Posted June 5 It's an interesting idea to make it a 65mm Rialto module to fit in front of the Venice 2 body, so owners of the Venice 2 don't have to buy an entirely new camera (including the rental houses.) I also think making the sensor 3:2 (1.50 : 1) was a good idea, it makes it more ideal for IMAX projects, you have the option of using 1.5X anamorphic lenses (if they cover) to get closer to a scope image if you like that anamorphic look. I think(?) it's the same sensor as the 8K Venice 2, just cut larger, which makes me wonder if there is any difference cropping the 65mm sensor down to 8K, 6K, 4K, etc. compared to swapping to the 8K Mini Rialto module.
Edith blazek Posted June 5 Author Posted June 5 23 minutes ago, David Mullen ASC said: I think(?) it's the same sensor as the 8K Venice 2, just cut larger, which makes me wonder if there is any difference cropping the 65mm sensor down to 8K, 6K, 4K, etc. compared to swapping to the 8K Mini Rialto module. It's not. The resolution 9564x6376, which at this size would be a 5.62 micron pixel pitch which is just below the 6k Venice pitch of 5.93 microns where the 8.6k venice 2 is 4.14 microns 1
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted June 5 Premium Member Posted June 5 Good to know — I’m at CineGear today and was going to ask the Sony people about that
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now