3 ms·
45k is cheap for a cinema camera. Since it’s generally large budget films that shoot anamorphic, this scheme allows the camera to be accessible to production co
by briandear 8y ago
45k is cheap for a cinema camera. Since it’s generally large budget films that shoot anamorphic, this scheme allows the camera to be accessible to production companies that might never need anamorphic. Anamorphic tech costs money to develop, so it seems that having all users subsidize an advanced feature they might not want would result in the camera costing more for everyone.
- dylan604 8y agoOutside of the lenses used, where does this other cost come from? The lens itself squeezes the wider image into the same shape as the sensor. The NLE or other DI processes would then just stretch it back out into whatever frame size is needed. It's the same concept 16:9 DVDs used too fit the wider content into an SD frame. A camera sensor doesn't care what shape the image is, as it only cares about if photons are hitting it or not. Yes, you can tell the camera you are shooting a certain aspect so that it doesn't energize parts of the sensor that's not needed. So some additional dev costs to add that feature. What else am I missing?