Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="WayneF" data-source="post: 344096" data-attributes="member: 12496">Not sure of the movie format.&nbsp; For still pictures, the diagonal measurement (or a bit longer) is normally considered the &quot;normal lens&quot; focal length.&nbsp; For DX, that is 29 mm.&nbsp;&nbsp; Or it would be valid to consider 50mm as &quot;normal&quot; for FX, so then 50/1.5 is 33mm for DX.&nbsp; So, around 30 to 35mm would be the &quot;normal lens&quot; for DX, and wide angle is shorter.DX is 3:2 format, and HDTV is 16:9, so movies would be a little different, and I realize now that I don't actually know about movie format.&nbsp;&nbsp; Making this up, but my guess is that the cameras use the full width, but the height would be shorter.&nbsp; There are sources that claim Nikon movies subsample every third FX pixel row, and every second DX row.What would you need a new lens to do different, that your current lens does not do now?A wide angle lens would let you stand closer than 100 feet.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="WayneF, post: 344096, member: 12496"] Not sure of the movie format. For still pictures, the diagonal measurement (or a bit longer) is normally considered the "normal lens" focal length. For DX, that is 29 mm. Or it would be valid to consider 50mm as "normal" for FX, so then 50/1.5 is 33mm for DX. So, around 30 to 35mm would be the "normal lens" for DX, and wide angle is shorter. DX is 3:2 format, and HDTV is 16:9, so movies would be a little different, and I realize now that I don't actually know about movie format. Making this up, but my guess is that the cameras use the full width, but the height would be shorter. There are sources that claim Nikon movies subsample every third FX pixel row, and every second DX row. What would you need a new lens to do different, that your current lens does not do now? A wide angle lens would let you stand closer than 100 feet. [/QUOTE]

Verification