Aspect ratio question about film sizes compared to widescreen aspect ratio of 2.35:1

mark

Member

Joined

Nov 13, 2003

Messages

5,703

• Nov 23, 2004

• #1

Is the title specific enough.

What film size is closest to the wide screen 2.35:1 aspect ratio? It is definately longer than 5x7 and less than 5x12 by just a little bit. 7x17 is just too long. Is 5x12 the closest I'll get?

 

Tom Duffy

Member

Joined

Nov 13, 2002

Messages

969

Location

New Jersey

• Nov 23, 2004

• #2

how about 6x12 cm in roll film? That way you can shoot in color.

 

OP

OP

mark

Member

Joined

Nov 13, 2003

Messages

5,703

• Nov 23, 2004

• #3

That is 2:1 very close.

The price of 6x12 backs are totally out of my range. Hell, right now breathing is out of my range.

 

Roger Krueger

Member

Joined

Jan 20, 2004

Messages

146

Location

San Diego, C

Format

Med. Format RF

• Nov 23, 2004

• #4

Hassleblad/Fuji XPan is 2.70

 

jimgalli

Subscriber

Joined

Sep 7, 2002

Messages

4,236

Location

Tonopah Neva

Format

ULarge Format

• Nov 23, 2004

• #5

On my slide rule, 5X12 comes the closest. 7X17 is next. A window mat will get the job done.

 

blansky

Member

Joined

Nov 6, 2002

Messages

5,952

Location

Wine country, N. Cal.

Format

Medium Format

• Nov 23, 2004

• #6

If it ain't close to the "golden mean" then it's blasphemy.

Immersing yourself in the devils formats like that will come back to haunt you.

There are a lot of people in the red states and they just may come and pay your ass a visit. Play it safe and stick with 8x10 and 16x20.


You've been warned,



Michael

 

tomishakishi2

Member

Joined

Oct 23, 2004

Messages

40

Format

Multi Format

• Nov 23, 2004

• #7

crop 5x4 to 5 x 2andabit. strangely 5x4 on the cheap would probably be the cheapest route...if you want to retain decent neg area.

I dont think there is an off the shelf colution apart from 6x12 which you say is too costly...even the rollfilm holders cost a fortune (never figured out why they are nearly 2x cost of 6x9 holders, even when essentially the same construction, just different gears and bigger hole!). Maybe the hole cutting machine is very expensive to run and is controlled by a chap on £250,000 a day and the blades wear out faster?

Tom

Tom

 

Eric Jones

Member

Joined

Oct 5, 2004

Messages

124

Location

Los Angeles

Format

Multi Format

• Nov 23, 2004

• #8

Sweet! The next film I shoot is going to be in the 8x10 format.

 

ReallyBigCameras

Advertiser

Advertiser

Joined

Oct 13, 2004

Messages

808

Format

4x5 Format

• Nov 24, 2004

• #9

mark said:

Is the title specific enough.

What film size is closest to the wide screen 2.35:1 aspect ratio? It is definately longer than 5x7 and less than 5x12 by just a little bit. 7x17 is just too long. Is 5x12 the closest I'll get?

Click to expand...

Well, if it's 2.35:1 you want 5x12 comes closest at 2.40:1. Shen-Hao is now offering a new 5x12 field camera and film holders are available from S&S.

I personally shoot 6x12cm (nominally 2.00:1, but can be as much as 2.14:1 depending on which back you use). and 4x10 (2.50:1). Since I shoot color, these are both more practical than 5x12 for my needs.

Kerry

 

ReallyBigCameras

Advertiser

Advertiser

Joined

Oct 13, 2004

Messages

808

Format

4x5 Format

• Nov 24, 2004

• #10

tomishakishi2 said:

I dont think there is an off the shelf colution apart from 6x12 which you say is too costly...even the rollfilm holders cost a fortune

Click to expand...

Not all 6x12 roll film holders cost a fortune. The Chinese DAYI 6x12 roll film back (sold under the Shen-Hao name) is $395 new. I have one that I use on a stripped down Crown Graphic ($175 on eBay). It's no Linhof, nor even a Horseman, but it works. The actual image area is 56 x 117mm (2.09:1).

There is another, even less expensive Chinese made 6x12 that regularly sells on eBay for less than $250. I have no experience with this back, so can't comment on the quality.

Kerry