Andrew McCarrick Posted June 22, 2008 Share Posted June 22, 2008 If I were to use 35mm lenses on the Phantom 65, what DOF would I have? Does the distance between the back of the lens and sensor change making the 35mm lense fill the sensor? Or is it just windowed 2k for 35mm lenses? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted June 22, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted June 22, 2008 Most of the wider and medium 35mm lenses would vignette on a 65mm sensor. Maybe some of the long ones wouldn't... but I wouldn't count on that, you're talking about filling an area twice as large as a 35mm lens was designed to cover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew McCarrick Posted June 22, 2008 Author Share Posted June 22, 2008 (edited) Most of the wider and medium 35mm lenses would vignette on a 65mm sensor. Maybe some of the long ones wouldn't... but I wouldn't count on that, you're talking about filling an area twice as large as a 35mm lens was designed to cover. Thanks for the response... I'm going to need to shoot something at either 48fps or 72fps in 4k (and I don't want to use film); any suggestions on a camera? I guess my other option is using 65mm lenses, but I need a somewhat deep depth of field (35mm equivalent, deeper than 65), and a not so wide focal length. Would you happen to know of any 65mm vs. 35mm DOF footage I might be able to look at? Maybe it'll be doable with a 65mm lens. Edited June 22, 2008 by Andrew McCarrick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted June 22, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted June 22, 2008 You need two more stops of light to get the equivalent depth of field... There are only three 4K Bayer cameras -- the Dalsa, Phantom 65, and the RED. I think only the Phantom 65 reaches the speeds you want so you don't have much choice but to use 65mm lenses. Unless you can live with 3K on the RED. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew McCarrick Posted June 22, 2008 Author Share Posted June 22, 2008 You need two more stops of light to get the equivalent depth of field... There are only three 4K Bayer cameras -- the Dalsa, Phantom 65, and the RED. I think only the Phantom 65 reaches the speeds you want so you don't have much choice but to use 65mm lenses. Unless you can live with 3K on the RED. Okay, thanks for the help. The Phantom it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuck colburn Posted June 22, 2008 Share Posted June 22, 2008 You could shoot on 65mm film and transfer to video. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew McCarrick Posted June 22, 2008 Author Share Posted June 22, 2008 You could shoot on 65mm film and transfer to video. It's an effect shot requiring 12-16 cameras so I'd rather not shoot 65mm film (for cost reasons alone)... 35mm film could be an option but I don't really like film grain from 35. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Max Jacoby Posted June 22, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted June 22, 2008 You can calculate the depth of field yourself. Here are some 35mm equivalents of 65mm lenses: 18mm : 40mm 24mm : 50mm 28mm : 60mm 35mm : 80mm 110mm:50mm 150mm:75mm 250mm:115m As you can see 65mm as a tad less than half the depth of field of 35mm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew McCarrick Posted June 22, 2008 Author Share Posted June 22, 2008 (edited) Okay.... I'm now considering 35mm film after all for this. Since I have done absolutely no research on film before.... If I want material shot on film to match the Dalsa 2:1 aspect ratio what would be my best aspect ratio to shoot? 1.85:1 scanned at 6k and cropped to 2:1? It will be recropped afterwards to 2.39 and 1.85 for release... but I want my original (digital) material to all be in the same aspect ratio. (Maybe should break this post off and move to the 35mm forum?) Edited June 22, 2008 by Andrew McCarrick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Alac Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 Hi Andrew, The current mounts available for the Phantom 65 are Mamiya & Super PL. Also here at Abel Cine Tech we've manufactured a Hasselblad mount which is now available. If you'd like to use PL 35mm lenses (or 35mm Nikon lenses) you could also use the Phantom HD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew McCarrick Posted June 23, 2008 Author Share Posted June 23, 2008 Hi Andrew, The current mounts available for the Phantom 65 are Mamiya & Super PL. Also here at Abel Cine Tech we've manufactured a Hasselblad mount which is now available. If you'd like to use PL 35mm lenses (or 35mm Nikon lenses) you could also use the Phantom HD. The Phantom HD doesn't have enough resolution for me... so I'm going with film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Andrew. What are you talking about? 4K OUTRESOLVES 3-perf 35mm, with your keeping in mind that I am a film purist. So how is it that a large-format digital movie camera with more resolution than 35mm doesn't have enough resolution for you but standard format 35mm does? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew McCarrick Posted June 26, 2008 Author Share Posted June 26, 2008 (edited) Andrew. What are you talking about? 4K OUTRESOLVES 3-perf 35mm, with your keeping in mind that I am a film purist. So how is it that a large-format digital movie camera with more resolution than 35mm doesn't have enough resolution for you but standard format 35mm does? Well you can scan 35mm film upto 8k... the 4k resolution Phantom camera is only 65mm, so it has a shallower depth of field... The Phantom HD only does 2k... The Dalsa Origin/Evolution and RED are the only two 35mm-sized sensor 4k cameras on the market. And at this point it doesn't matter any more... you can check out my other thread "Arri 3-Perf" (in the 35mm sub-forum) for the reason. Edited June 26, 2008 by Andrew McCarrick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 Well you can scan 35mm film upto 8k... the 4k resolution Phantom camera is only 65mm, so it has a shallower depth of field... The Phantom HD only does 2k... The Dalsa Origin/Evolution and RED are the only two 35mm-sized sensor 4k cameras on the market. And at this point it doesn't matter any more... you can check out my other thread "Arri 3-Perf" (in the 35mm sub-forum) for the reason. Shallower depth of field and lack of resolution are not the same thing. Also, consider that this is akin to saying 35mm still film outresolves a 12MP medium format digital back. It *can* if you're shooting slow film and using a prime lens, but often, with a zoom, 400-film, and hand-held, the back is going to win. Keep this in mind: Sensor/film size is the surest way to increase resolution, because larger image area is better able to "hide" lens aberrations and lens defects. Regardless of the resolution (4K is going to smoke anything but maybe 50D or 100T stocks out there in 3-perf.), even if you scan 35mm at 8K, you are NOT going to get 8K of information off of it. You can't get 48MP of resolution (8K) off of 35mm 3 perf, even 35mm 4-perf. It just isn't going to happen. That's like saying that a still frame of 35mm film has 100MP of information on it. It tops out at 25. Therefore, you'll get at best ~4K of resolution from an optimally exposed, Super 35 4-perf frame of film. You need to educate yourself more before you waste time and money on film or renting cameras, be it your own money or others'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Holland Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 Karl just dont waste your time with this person he lives a dream world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 I know John, I read the 35mm 3-perf. post. That doesn't mean he can't benefit from some education though, does it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Earl Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 It's an effect shot requiring 12-16 cameras. Wow. Why do you need that many cameras for a single shot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew McCarrick Posted June 26, 2008 Author Share Posted June 26, 2008 I'm no longer planning to use either film or digital for this shot... I'm just going to use DigitalAir's system and whatever they feel is the best approach, we'll do... I thought that was made clear by the end of the Arri 3-Perf thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Metzger Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 Have you checked into rental prices for a phantom? The cost of the camera body alone should blow away a 35mm equivalent. You will also need more than just the Phantom Body; cinemag, Phantom tech, storage...etc. I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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