f900 vs f950 Urgent!!
Posted 16 November 2006 - 03:49 AM
My question is which will provide better results for a narrative film. I know the 900 is inferior (lower resolution, color compression), but is the usage of 35 primes worth the loss in resolution (not to mention filming the groundglass, which in principle seems rather repugnant to me), or is the fujinon zoom lens on the 950 better, despite TV depth of field and zoom lens optics?
Two other things to note:
We will be matching the HD footage with Super 16mm shot in the US.
In China, they don't have access to HDCAM SR recorders, only HDCAM. So it seems that even if we shoot on the F950, we still can't achieve the resolution gain achievable on SR.
Having never filmed on either, or used a 35 adapter, any information will help.
J. Soren Viuf
PS - which set of primes would be best, Arri, Zeiss, Kodak, or Nikon?
Posted 17 November 2006 - 06:29 AM
Can someone please help me?
The main reason for shooting with the pro 35 is for 35 mm depth of field. If you're trying to match Super 16 you don't really need this, also the Pro 35 gives a slight Promist effect. I'd tend to go with the Fujinon and try for the best match in post. Also, have a talk to the colourist in your post house regarding the camera setting.
The ENG style lenses are a pain when shooting narrative with a focus puller because of the terrible scales, but I think this would give you the best chance of matching the Super 16. Remember that the focus scale on ENG lenses is measured from the front of the lenses as against the focal plane used on the cine style ones.
Posted 17 November 2006 - 07:44 PM