Eric Soto

Ok, Thank you for those links.

Hey guys quick tangent while on the subject of 70mm. On a previous post I was told that using anamorphic lenses on open gate on a Alexa would be a waste of space on the sensor. Does this also apply to using anamorphic lenses on 65mm film ?

Great. Thank you for the thorough reply.

"2.2 to 1.85 is just a matter of arithmetic. It's still a far bigger neg area than 35mm. and of course sharper than blowing up from 35." Fair enough. Thank you.

Right ok. So my next question would be, do you roughly know how much , in percentage, you are losing when you crop a 65mm to 1.85 ? Could it be argued if there is even a point in shooting in 65mm if it will be cropped to that ?

Hey everyone, I was reading up on The Master and it was shot for the majority on 65mm, about 80% and the rest being shot on 35mm. It's distributed aspect ratio was 1.85, so that the 65mm would match the 35mm footage. I guess I just want to be confirmed on something. The aspect ratio of 65mm is about 2.20 if I am correct ? Does this mean that when the 65mm footage was cropped to 1.85 was it cropped on both the vertical and horizontal ? Thanks everyone.

OK I see. Thank you.

So I looked this over and I fully understand what you mean now, but one question unrelated to open gate but to this page you sent. What is the difference between Arri 2.39 Flat and Arri 2.39 Scope 2x ? I thought that flat refers to 1.78- 1.85 ? Thanks

Great. Thank you.

I apologise if this may seem redundant for you, but could expand on why there would be no advantage to shooting on anamorphic lenses in Open Gate ? Would it be because the anamorphic lenses have a stretch of 2:1, and would therefore not use the full open gate resolution?

I see. ok. Thanks.

What would be the reason not to always shoot open gate then ?

Hey everyone, what are the benefits of shooting open gate on a camera like the Alexa XT ? Thanks.

It's fine. It's a good starting point to understanding the science behind it.

I see. Awesome thank you for the quick replies.

Why does a larger format make the DoF smaller?

Yea I figured, sorry I should've been more specific as to why this happens.

I was reading in American Cinematographer about the making of Thor : Ragnarok and and it says " to maximise the depth of field and exposure quality of the Alexa 65, Aguirresarobe (DoP) was determined to light to a relatively high T-Stop of 5.6, while rating the camera at ASA 1,250." I wanted to know if anyone could explain the relationship between DoF and 65mm formats or any format really and why this was specifically done in the quote provided. Thanks everyone!

Right ok, I understand, Thank you for all your help.

I see, makes more sense now.

Awesome ok great, you guys have been a great help. I understand now. I guess a last more artistic question, why do you guys choose to shoot at 2.39 when you know that you will lose some of frame due to cropping? I understand that it gives a certain feel. But do you guys think that that is more an appeal to tradition and its just a way that we think things look cinematic? As cinematographers wouldn't you always want to present the most of the frame as possible ?

ok so if you are shooting on a 4k camera and want to see it at 2.39 would you shoot at native resolution of 4096x2160, and then the footage would be cropped in post? Or would the camera offer a setting to shoot in 4k scope in which case, there wouldn't be any cropping until being displayed on a standard 1.78? I guess what I am still not understanding is that when you shoot for 2.39, you are assuming there is going to be cropping or letterboxing on the top and bottom, correct? Is it ever the case that one can shoot at 2.39 and it displays without cropping? ( Monitors or screens that have that aspect ratio?)

Ok so if I am understanding this right, when you are shooting lets say 4K Scope, when it is displayed in 16x9, the image will be cropped both vertically and horizontally? but you will only see letterboxing on the top and bottom right?

Ok thank you for your thorough explanation. I guess I have a few more questions to follow : So when it comes to resolution, lets say 2K and 4K which are both 1.89, if I'm correct, that means that obviously 4k is of higher resolution, but they both have the same aspect ratio correct? In terms of size of frame, the only difference is the number of pixels within the frame? Also, I guess when it comes to order of understanding this, would it go like this. First you have your camera sensor which has its aspect ratio. Let's say the Red Epic Dragon which was used on some of the seasons of House of Cards, its sensor is 6144x3160, or 1.94. So anything that is filmed is captured at this aspect ratio but it is framed for 2.00 aspect ratio ? And this is done for purely aesthetic reasons, to make it appear more cinematic? To make it appear like 70mm ? And with all of that is aspect ratio comprise of camera sensor, aesthetics , and which monitor it will be viewed ? Thank you very much, I apologise if these questions may seem redundant.

ok great. Its surprising how no one ever mentions that in their explanations about aspect ratios. That it's purely a feeling thing. At least the ones I have seen. Thank You!