-
Why the big dogs skipped ‘full frame’ when going from super-35 to 70mm
As a cinematographer, I’m of an age where I’m more used to working in “full frame” of 8-perf 35 than Super-35. I’m not here to bang on about its superiority or flaws, but I find it interesting that while super-35 has been the main stay of big budget studio productions for ages, there is a lot of hype lately in that arena about 70mm, and the attendant cameras and glass that go with it. Well and good, but I find it interesting that full-frame has been all but skipped over by that part of the industry, leaving 35mm full frame firmly in the indie market.
Has anyone got any thoughts or insights as to why that is?Mathew Farrell
flowstate.com.au -
2 Replies
-
Looks like you spoke too soon. Sony VENICE!
Honestly, I think decades of super35mm work meant most of the cinematography tech was adapted to it. Full Frame is primarily a photo realm, and not all lenses or mounts are designed for it. Why chase that extra bit of sensor size if it didn’t truly add that much? You’d be venturing a lot of new ideas into a realm that wasn’t entirely necessary; people make things on 16mm still.
I think that 70mm represented a big enough leap over super35 to warrant new development while Full Frame is just not big enough of a jump.
-
Yeah man, I’m convinced Sony read my post and hustled double-time to make that camera.
That’s the best, and in fact one of the only, arguments I’ve heard in favour of “skipping full frame”. Taking your thoughts a step further, I’d lean more on the gear side of it–that a lot of glass just didn’t have the coverage for FF and like you say, it wasn’t enough of a difference to get excited until 70mm came along. Kinda similarly, from a film-base, I wonder if full frame didn’t give enough detail advantage over super-35, but 70mm does, even though that’s a diminished argument in the days of decent digital.
Cheers for weighing in.
Mathew Farrell
flowstate.com.au
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up