http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/thumbnail_570x321/2013/02/oscars_class_photo_2013_a_h.jpg
I apologize this isn't a higher rez image...but on Jimmy Kimmel, he held up a print that was maybe 50 inches wide, then the tv camera zoomed in on it. Quite high rez, sharp to the corners...and likely not a stitched panorama (I might be wrong on that, though). So I was curious if any of you might know what was used.
I tried to web search, but I'm not going to go through 20 pages of unrelated star glam minutia.
If it actually is a stitched panorama, then it matters far less to me what was used.
If it really is a one shot capture, with many of us finding difficulty achieving sharpness at the corners of very wide angle lenses...it would be interesting to know what it is. I suppose it could even be something really exotic...some $100k wide angle cine lens or something. Maybe that's even likely...they used a 4K or even an 8K (?) cinema camera, shot full motion video at that resolution, then decided of all the thousands of frames, which one was best?
Or perhaps it is a stitched panorama done simultaneously with multiple camera bodies, arrayed, then somehow tweaked in post to remove the perspective-difference anomalies? (Seems unlikely, but the mind boggles).
I apologize this isn't a higher rez image...but on Jimmy Kimmel, he held up a print that was maybe 50 inches wide, then the tv camera zoomed in on it. Quite high rez, sharp to the corners...and likely not a stitched panorama (I might be wrong on that, though). So I was curious if any of you might know what was used.
I tried to web search, but I'm not going to go through 20 pages of unrelated star glam minutia.
If it actually is a stitched panorama, then it matters far less to me what was used.
If it really is a one shot capture, with many of us finding difficulty achieving sharpness at the corners of very wide angle lenses...it would be interesting to know what it is. I suppose it could even be something really exotic...some $100k wide angle cine lens or something. Maybe that's even likely...they used a 4K or even an 8K (?) cinema camera, shot full motion video at that resolution, then decided of all the thousands of frames, which one was best?
Or perhaps it is a stitched panorama done simultaneously with multiple camera bodies, arrayed, then somehow tweaked in post to remove the perspective-difference anomalies? (Seems unlikely, but the mind boggles).