What is the difference between 2:35:1 and 2:40:1 aspect ratios?
Is one Super 35 mm and the other anamorphic lenses?
i think 2:35 is with lenses and 2:40 is just a differnt wider stock.
Loved your story by the way.
Instead of Japanese ketchup could be Japanese avocado.
Quote from: Roman Cibeles
Is one Super 35 mm and the other anamorphic lenses?
correct
didnt know that i saw some 2:70 or something on some russian cameras.
Quote from: Roman CibelesWhat is the difference between 2:35:1 and 2:40:1 aspect ratios?
Is one Super 35 mm and the other anamorphic lenses?
Both numbers are used interchangeably aren't they? AFAIK, Super35 or anamorphic doesn't make a difference like that in aspect ratio, since the release prints for a Super 35 film are anamorphic.
Quote from: RaviQuote from: Roman CibelesWhat is the difference between 2:35:1 and 2:40:1 aspect ratios?
Is one Super 35 mm and the other anamorphic lenses?
Both numbers are used interchangeably aren't they? AFAIK, Super35 or anamorphic doesn't make a difference like that in aspect ratio, since the release prints for a Super 35 film are anamorphic.
incorrect
An excerpt from an old post at rec.arts.movies.tech on groups.google.com:
Quotehttp://groups.google.com/groups?q=2.35:1+2.40:1+super+35+group:rec.arts.movies.tech&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-
8&group=rec.arts.movies.tech&selm=19970618173501.NAA18664%40ladder01.news.aol.com&rnum=1
The 2.35:1 ratio eventually settled on for CinemaScope, Panavision,
etc. was altered in the early 70s to 2.40:1 to help keep
film splices from being projected.
The 1995 Panavision catalog specifies the anamorphic projection
aperture at .838 inches by .700, giving a ratio of 2.394:1. The catalog
rounds this up to 2.40:1, but some posters in this group round it
to 2.39:1. In the same catalog, the "Super Panavision 35mm" (super 35)
extracted area is specified as .945 X .511, yielding 2.398:1, which
rounds closer to 2.40:1.
I think it's funny that people always type 2:35:1. That would mean 2 by 35 by 1. Where's the third dimension?! I used to wonder about this, and then saw on FCP that it was 2.35:1. Then the clouds cleared and the world made sense :wink:
i was recently researching anamorphic vs. super 35mm. the depth of anamorphic is wonderful -- also what the sphereical lenses do with highlights and flares is such a greast look -- however the actual shooting process is excrutiating -- as fincher would put it shooting anamorphic is nothing short of archaic -- i know a process that fincher uses is shooting super 35 and doing a digital anamorphic pull in post -- anyone have any insight on this process?
The new Panic Room DVD offers a good explanation of super-35.
QuoteI think it's funny that people always type 2:35:1. That would mean 2 by 35 by 1. Where's the third dimension?! I used to wonder about this, and then saw on FCP that it was 2.35:1. Then the clouds cleared and the world made sense
That's true 2.35:1 it made sesne to me in astronomy class while explaining scales. I still type 2:35:1. Looks cool
Does this mean that Spy Kids 3D is ..... :shock: