Achieving 2.35:1 without cropping?

[AutumnJazz]

Is there any way to get such an aspect ratio, without cropping, on still 35mm? I see it done all the time for movies, but they all tend to use $30,000 anamorphic lenses.

Thanks.

 

[John Koehrer]

Mamiya 7ll, 7 with the 35 mm kit or Xpan would give ABOUT that ratio.

 

[mudman]

EDIT:
Sorry I misunderstood what you were looking for.

 

[2F/2F]

You need to find something that shoots a 24 by 56 mm frame to get that aspect ratio on 135. Mamiya 7 and X Pan give you 24x65, which is a 2.7:1 aspect ratio. With the Mamiya 6MF with this adapter, you would be in business for what you asked for.

Here is what Ken Rockwell's opinion on the matter is:

"The difference between the two real modern Mamiya 6s is that the MF, or multi format, version, had some idiotic multi format adapters available. One of these adapters masked 6 x 6 film down to 6 x 4.5 making the edges of the frame black and still giving you the same 12 or 24 exposures. The other stupid adapter allowed you to use 35mm film for making 24mm x 56mm panoramic shots. This also is a dumb idea because the wide 35mm film costs as much per shot as the 120 or 220 film does, and limits your entire roll to the stupid format. Smart people just shoot the full 6x6 aperture and crop later. Also the MF (Majorly Foolish) version has a lot of distracting blips in the viewfinder trying to cover all the different 'formats.'"

I agree, and I think he was being intentionally grumpy and intended it to be somewhat humorous. However, I would certainly appreciate a viewfinder mask even if doing this with medium format film.

 

[jp80874]

Is there any way to get such an aspect ratio, without cropping, on still 35mm? I see it done all the time for movies, but they all tend to use $30,000 anamorphic lenses.

Thanks.

For far less than $30K get a 7x17" for a 1:2.4285 ratio and enjoy the real estate. It even has interchangable lenses.

John Powers

 

[AutumnJazz]

If a 7x17 camera costs $3500, I do not even want to know how much a lens for one would cost. How avalable is film for such a format?

 

[elekm]

Sounds like the Hasselblad XPan might be close, and those can be had for about $1,500 or so.

It's a solidly made camera with a great lens. A bit on the heavy side, but certainly easy to carry and use.

 

[jd callow]

You need to find something that shoots a 24 by 56 mm frame to get that aspect ratio on 135. Mamiya 7 and X Pan give you 24x65, which is a 2.7:1 aspect ratio. With the Mamiya 6MF with this adapter, you would be in business for what you asked for.

Here is what Ken Rockwell's opinion on the matter is:

"The difference between the two real modern Mamiya 6s is that the MF, or multi format, version, had some idiotic multi format adapters available. One of these adapters masked 6 x 6 film down to 6 x 4.5 making the edges of the frame black and still giving you the same 12 or 24 exposures. The other stupid adapter allowed you to use 35mm film for making 24mm x 56mm panoramic shots. This also is a dumb idea because the wide 35mm film costs as much per shot as the 120 or 220 film does, and limits your entire roll to the stupid format. Smart people just shoot the full 6x6 aperture and crop later. Also the MF (Majorly Foolish) version has a lot of distracting blips in the viewfinder trying to cover all the different 'formats.'"

I agree, and I think he was being intentionally grumpy and intended it to be somewhat humorous. However, I would certainly appreciate a viewfinder mask even if doing this with medium format film.

I have the mf and find the 35mm option really nice when I want to shoot film available in 35mm, but not in 120/220. The additional frame lines (distracting blips) are nice in that they help with framing, straightening and composing the image regardless of format. The 6x45 option is a waste. Ken Rockwell seems to be making much out of nothing as no one makes you use the options.

 

[jp80874]

If a 7x17 camera costs $3500, I do not even want to know how much a lens for one would cost. How avalable is film for such a format?

Cameras range all over the place, new and used. $3500 is probably low for new. Mine is an RH Phillips that sold new in the $4600 range. A normal lens equivalent to 50mm in 35mm would be a 450mm M f9 Nikor. Since you are thinking wide a 355mm G Claron might be nicer. Both of these are selling used in the $700-$800 range as prices go down on eBay. I am happier with a wider view and shoot most of my subjects with a 300mm Dagor at $1,000+or a 250mm Wide Field Ektar at $700-800. These are ball park prices rather than yesterday's quotes. Don't forget film holders at about $300 a piece. Film is a once a year order in anything above 11x14. Several sponsors are saying they have Ilford in stock. T Max 400 was ordered recently at Glazers for about $8.00 a sheet. You buy a bunch once a year and put it in the freezer. If your spouse is like my wife, she expects to put food in the freezer. You might want to figure in a used freezer as well.

Don't choke until you have been there. I shot 35mm for 40 years and then started taking photo courses in my retirement. What you can do with big film in a contact print is pretty amazing. I have always tried to buy better than I could handle at the time of purchase and learn my way into it. My father's advice was buy the best you can and keep it for ever. I still have the 356 Porsche coupe I bought new in 1964. The parents of the kids in my college class hadn't met in 1964.

John Powers

 

[David Brown]

Horizont, Widelux, Noblex.

 

[mabman]

Horizont, Widelux, Noblex.

Agreed. I believe the Soviet/Russian Horizont/Horizon models are the cheapest of the swing-lens 35mm panoramics. Shutter speeds may be limited, however.

 

[r-brian]

Another option would be a Bronica SQa with the 135W back. The whole outfit is a lot cheaper than a Xpan or a Mamiya 7.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

How about a Holga with a 35mm attachment? If you want to go cheap and funky, that is... Used with the 6x6 mask you get about 24mm x 60mm or so.

It works. Barely.

- Thomas

 

[AutumnJazz]

Cameras range all over the place, new and used. $3500 is probably low for new. Mine is an RH Phillips that sold new in the $4600 range. A normal lens equivalent to 50mm in 35mm would be a 450mm M f9 Nikor. Since you are thinking wide a 355mm G Claron might be nicer. Both of these are selling used in the $700-$800 range as prices go down on eBay. I am happier with a wider view and shoot most of my subjects with a 300mm Dagor at $1,000+or a 250mm Wide Field Ektar at $700-800. These are ball park prices rather than yesterday's quotes. Don't forget film holders at about $300 a piece. Film is a once a year order in anything above 11x14. Several sponsors are saying they have Ilford in stock. T Max 400 was ordered recently at Glazers for about $8.00 a sheet. You buy a bunch once a year and put it in the freezer. If your spouse is like my wife, she expects to put food in the freezer. You might want to figure in a used freezer as well.

Don't choke until you have been there. I shot 35mm for 40 years and then started taking photo courses in my retirement. What you can do with big film in a contact print is pretty amazing. I have always tried to buy better than I could handle at the time of purchase and learn my way into it. My father's advice was buy the best you can and keep it for ever. I still have the 356 Porsche coupe I bought new in 1964. The parents of the kids in my college class hadn't met in 1964.

John Powers

Thank you. While I may be a bit young for a spouse, I have taken over the family freezer.

I think for now I'm just going to shoot for 35mm and LF, but I'll probably end up messing around with ULF panoramic cameras in the future.

 

[jp80874]

Thank you. While I may be a bit young for a spouse, I have taken over the family freezer.

I think for now I'm just going to shoot for 35mm and LF, but I'll probably end up messing around with ULF panoramic cameras in the future.

If you are that young my spouse may be selling my camera & gear when you are ready. Just don't wait until you can't carry it.

John

 

[JBrunner]

Check out Fotoman.

 

[2F/2F]

Well, you have somewhat of an answer, but not a 35mm one: shoot anything 6x6 or horizontal 6x4.5 and crop it down to 24mm in height. As Ken Rockwell mentions, the cost per shot is the same as 35mm anyhow. Make a mask for the viewfinder or draw lines on your focusing screen if you want. That gives you a lot of options, some of which are nice and cheap, and gives you a normal 120/220 camera as well. Unless you absolutely must use something that is only available in 35mm, it seems like a very sensible option. You can use 800Z/400H or Portra 800/400 as reasonable Superia/Press 800/400 alternatives. You can use the 160 films for Superia/Press 100/200 alternatives. Reala is available in 120 if you have it imported via B&H or some other store. You are out of luck for Neopan 1600 and Superia/Press/Natura 1600. You do miss out on some nice films this way (namely Fuji Press), but IMO there is enough of a selection in 120/220 films to do pretty much anything you need to do.

 

[Bill Mitchell]

Why? It sounds like a pretty dumb idea to me. Unless you're Cartier-Bresson what's wrong with cropping?

 

[MattKing]

Why? It sounds like a pretty dumb idea to me. Unless you're Cartier-Bresson what's wrong with cropping?

I think the OP is trying to get panoramic results from something other than a 2.35:1 crop of a standard 35mm frame. I would expect he wants to avoid the significant increase in grain and reduction in tonality and sharpness that results from that sort of crop.

Matt

 

[AutumnJazz]

What Matt said. But I've decided against it. Too bad there aren't more cameras like the Xpan.

 

[2F/2F]

I think the OP is trying to get panoramic results from something other than a 2.35:1 crop of a standard 35mm frame. I would expect he wants to avoid the significant increase in grain and reduction in tonality and sharpness that results from that sort of crop.

Matt

We are suggesting cropping medium format down to that aspect ratio, not cropping 35mm. With a 6x7 or 6x9 camera, this will give her less grain and more sharpness than shooting a 24x56mm frame on 35mm film, and with a 6x6 or 6x4.5 camera, it will give her exactly the same amount. As for "reduction in tonality": Tonality is not something that can be reduced or increased, but one of the ways of explaining the visual elements of something, such as a work of art.

 

[Commando303]

Is there any way to get such an aspect ratio, without cropping, on still 35mm? I see it done all the time for movies, but they all tend to use $30,000 anamorphic lenses.

Thanks.

I'm not sure whether or not your use of the term "cropping" includes this, but, have you considered simply designing a mask for the focal plane of the body? Yes, you'd lose resolution, but, if all you're worried about is the additional work of having to crop down your images, with this method, you'd end up with negatives the images of which would be in whatever aspect-ratio you desired. For example, to achieve 2.35:1, you'd just need to fashion a mask to cover about 4.34mm of both the top and the bottom of your focal plane. If you're concerned that what you see (if your finder) will be different from what you get (on your neg.), you could simply create an additional mask to be placed below the focusing screen.

Good luck.

 

[2F/2F]

I'm not sure whether or not your use of the term "cropping" includes this, but, have you considered simply designing a mask for the focal plane of the body? Yes, you'd lose resolution, but, if all you're worried about is the additional work of having to crop down your images, with this method, you'd end up with negatives the images of which would be in whatever aspect-ratio you desired. For example, to achieve 2.35:1, you'd just need to fashion a mask to cover about 4.34mm of both the top and the bottom of your focal plane. If you're concerned that what you see (if your finder) will be different from what you get (on your neg.), you could simply create an additional mask to be placed below the focusing screen.

Good luck.

Why not just mask the viewfinder? Masking the film plane is unnecessary.

 

[Commando303]

Why not just mask the viewfinder? Masking the film plane is unnecessary.

Masking the viewfinder wouldn't have any effect on the negative, just as masking the film plane would have none on the viewfinder.

 

[2F/2F]

Masking the viewfinder wouldn't have any effect on the negative, just as masking the film plane would have none on the viewfinder.

Why would this matter? The extra can be easily cropped in printing without having to monkey with the internals of your camera, and that way you could fudge a little this way or a little that way if desired. The masked viewfinder would simply provide a nice and helpful compositional aid, but masking the negative itself is totally unnecessary. That is like sanding the grooves flat on side B of a 45 because you only want to listen to side A.