[NASA1988]

Thanks, David. I should clarify that I was thinking specifically of Super 35-sized sensors, particularly those with taller recording modes suitable for 2× anamorphic photography, rather than wider large-format sensors.

I understand your point that the advantage in image area depends on the sensor’s proportions, and I agree that there’s nothing inherently wrong with cropping a spherical image to 2.39:1(I especially like it for VistaVision or larger sensors capable of shooting VistaVision type measurements like 3:2 at very high resolutions). My preference for 1.85:1 when shooting spherical is partly aesthetic.

My main curiosity, though, is about the resulting image rather than sensor utilization.

With equivalent framing and camera position, do you find that anamorphic lenses produce a noticeably different spatial impression from spherical lenses, particularly in how they render faces, foregrounds, backgrounds, and focus falloff?

I understand that perspective itself comes from camera position, but I’m wondering whether the cylindrical optics create a distinctive sense of dimensionality beyond their more obvious aberrations, or whether you feel those differences become negligible with well-corrected anamorphics like Primo Anamorphics or Master Anamorphics rather than something like a C Series or Xtal Express.

[NASA1988]

Thank you all! I just thought with more exposure, there may be hope of something truly massive.

[NASA1988]

Totally fair — thanks for the honest reply. Since you do know the Alexa Mini LF: when you’re judging whether a camera is viable for a big, outdoor-heavy film (Lawrence-scale), what are the first practical things you care about — monitoring, highlight behavior, reliability, post pipeline, etc.? Also, ignoring marketing: what does LF sensor size actually change for you on set, and when does “more Ks” really matter (if ever) beyond VFX/reframing/archival?

[Author]

Replies