![Anamorphic-digital_sound[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/fOHKPXt.jpg "Anamorphic-digital_sound[1].jpg")
Guys, I just realized something that's really basic but apparently not widely known outside of cinematographers.
35mm movie cameras shoot vertically, so they're really shooting what we'd call half-frame for still photos. Basically the size of APS-C.
FOOL FRAME BTFO
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2006:07:04 22:50:39 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 630 Image Height 673
Just because you just figured this out doesn't mean it's not common knowledge.
>>2766592
This is fairly well known...
>>2766592
>he doesn't know what anamorphic cinematography is
Fucking saged.
>>2766611
Shooting anamorphic doesn't make the capturing medium any bigger, so even if the resulting image is 2.35:1 the amount of information captured is the same.
>>2766592
Correct me if im wrong, but the OP's image shows an example of animorphic format, stretching 2:35:1 to fit full frame 35 mm, for higher quality/less grain. Shooting 2:35:1 frames directly on 35 mm film is more or less half frame, not unlike aps-c
>>2766592
You mean super 35?
Guys, I just realized something that's really basic but apparently not widely known outside of people with an IQ above room temperature.
IMAX movie cameras shoot horizontally, so they're really shooting what we'd call medium format for still photos. Basically the size of a digital back mf sensor.
FOOL FRAME BTFO
Guys, I reconfirm my realization, That fool frame is just a unnecessary midpoint between apsc and 645 or "true full frame"
>>2766694
>sorry mate, you are thinking of 70mm. nobody makes a 6x7 sensor and even then the MF sensors that can shoot video are a crop of the 645 frame.
>>2766592
lel i just realized this? i hope you haven't been giving out c&c or gear advice.
>>2766705
Wow, I had no idea there was such a big difference between Super Panavision 70 and IMAX. For some reason I thought they were roughly the same, boy was I wrong.
>>2766696
>645
>True full frame
>Picture of 6x9 camera
>>2766696
>645
>true fool frame
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS3 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2012:03:04 09:59:34 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 580 Image Height 670
>>2767053
What is that, a 16x20?
Also
>not posting the airplane hanger camera
One job anon...one job.
>>2767080
From a ad for a 20x24 some time ago on APUG:
"Suitable for street photography.
Because streets are large and don't move."
>>2766592
FUJIFAGS BTFO
>>2767089
I genuinely LOL'd.
I couldn't imagine trying to find a lens with an image circle that large much less trying to feed that hungry bastard with film.
>>2766592
yea
and billboards are printed at 15ppi at most...
it all depends on your final media, and what people are used to see in it
anyways, you're right, aps-c does suit most of amateur and professional photography; the difference between aps-c and ff is far more subtle than the difference between ff and 645, not to mention mf, lf etc
>>2767099
Zach pls go
