A comparison:
Anamorphic versus Super 35
How can you capture the vastness that makes the widescreen visual experience so special on 35mm material? Over the course of time, only two solutions have proven to work.
A short comparison:
35mm negative format
Negative area Super 35 (1:2.40)
Negative area Hawks (1:2.40)
| Anamorphic | Super 35 |
|---|---|
| Full use of the format = 52% more exposed film area | Less film area used, even with 3-perforation technique |
| With the same framing, focal lengths are doubled = shallow depth of field for impressive and three-dimensional pictures | Greater depth of field, due to construction. Flat look. |
| The new Hawk-series is just as light as conventional lenses. | Until recently: lighter |
| Very good performance at full aperture (all Hawk-series) | Good to very good performance at full aperture (depending on manufacturer) |
| Film negative equivalent to projection copy — no format conversion necessary | The complete film has to be converted to the (anamorphic!) projection format (costly, loss in quality) |
| Film output up to 4K = considerably better quality at slightly longer computing times; even 2K output is superior to Super 35 | Only 2K output possible = shorter post production, inferior quality |
| Not available at all rental locations (but ready for action within a few hours all over Europe) | Standard equipment |
| Slightly more expensive at purchase / rent (note: special package deals!) | Wider price range, depends on quality |
Choose your Language: 
Our time:
Date: