Going wide with the HV20...

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

What is the easiest way to go 2:35:1 with the HV20? Just tape off some of the viewfinder and edit within a 2:35:1 window?

Is that the easiest/cheapest way?

Mike

[lovefilm]

I think you can choose the format in your editor when you export the final footage.

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

Wouldn't that stretch it?

[Zak Forsman]

What is the easiest way to go 2:35:1 with the HV20? Just tape off some of the viewfinder and edit within a 2:35:1 window?

Is that the easiest/cheapest way?

Mike

throwing a 2.35:1 matte on in post is pretty much the only way.

[tcindie]

You could use an anamorphic lens. Since you're capturing with a 16:9 native sensor, the anamorphic lens would stretch it even wider.. You'll have to unstretch it in post though, because otherwise on a 16:9 screen it will look like a squeezed image..

I would probably just frame my shots with that final aspect ratio in mind though and letterbox it in post. The nice thing about doing it that way is it gives you some wiggle room, you can slide the footage up and down the distance of the height of one letterboxed side. So if your framing has heads a little too high in the frame you just slide it down so they're in a better position, or whatever the subject being focused on is. You do loose a lot of the image that way, but it gives you the most flexability.

It would be like shooting on 35mm with 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 in mind -- often times rather than using a different sized gate the image will be the full 4:3 frame, and for distribution it means the 4:3 image actually has a bit more of the frame. One film that comes to mind that did this is Airforce one. The wide screen and "full screen" versions have all the same things in the frame, but the 4:3 "full screen" film is a bit taller. Using an anamorphic lens a full screen version would have to utilize pan & scan, which is going to cut out the sides of the frame and often means an entire character has to be cut from the frame.

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

throwing a 2.35:1 matte on in post is pretty much the only way.
How would one do that with Premiere Pro 1.5?

[Zak Forsman]

How would one do that with Premiere Pro 1.5?
I imagine Premiere must have some kind of Matte functionality? right? I've never used it but here is an old thread about a solution (probably outdated now)...

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=15539

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

Thanks, that does the trick.

I think it will help if I matte the viewfinder on the camera as well. That way I'll know what I'll be dealing with in post.

[PaPa]

premier pro

new item > transparent video
then use the clip function, on native 16x9 track, use 12 on top and bottom, for a 4x3, i think it is 22.

[Artscroll]

I have the 16:9 anamorphic attachment made my Optex. It costed me $400 but works real good with the Steadicam Merlin and the HV20. I had to buy a step-up ring but the weight is good for the Merlin with the Anamorphic. Gives me a nice 2.35:1 image albeit losing a stop or two of light. Just a little barrel distortion fully wide and absolutely no vignetting at the fully wide setting which is a major plus. I don't mind hard matting to 2.35:1 or 2.39:1 in post but there is something about the anamorphic process I like :) Focus hasn't really been an issue for me like it was on the DVX with its anamorphic attachment.

[AuditoryVisuals]

Export your footage as 1920x1080 square pixel. Create a new project of 1920x817. Import 1920x1080 footage and drag into 1920x817 timeline. Export. Create new 1920x1080 project and import and drag the 1920x817 video into timeline. Export. And you've got a 1920x1080 video with a cropped image of 1920x817 in the center.

Complicated huh? I don't have 1.5 but I used 1 and it's pretty much the same.

[Jack_Felis]

Easiest and cheapest way is to tape the LCD off.

I've got the Panasonic anamorphic adapter and some stepping rings for mine. It works great as you can see in the two pictures I posted in a thread about it. The focus was a little soft in those pictures, it was just me and the tiny LCD, I didn't have an external monitor or anybody else there to check while I stood in frame.

My biggest problem with the anamorphic adapter was not the focus actually, it was how the stretched image affected the camera's LCD and viewfinder. Neither one shows you the whole frame obviously, even without the adapter, cutting somewhere between 3-5% of the image off just around the edges. Usually this isn't a problem for 16:9 shooting but in 2.35:1 it's a nightmare! Also, because the LCD and viewfinder are so small and combined with the squeezed image making small details even smaller, combined with the cutoff, they messed up several shots for me where I had a boom pole sticking right in the upper edge of the frame, wires on the floor appearing on the left hand edge of the image where it looked like nothing was there while filming, and, the worst of all, an entire C-stand was in the frame while I was shooting and when I went back to download it, in the clip was a big silver metal pole with "UNLV Film" scribbled in marker right in on the left of image, completely cut off from the edge of the LCD where I couldn't have seen it. It almost looked like some sort of watermark-like thing I put on in post. I couldn't believe it.

So, if you are going to use an anamorphic adapter with your HV20 or any 16:9 camera for that matter, an external monitor is a must. Nothing too fancy, just something to show you the entire image the camera is getting. For instance, I'm looking into the Ikan V8000HD because of it's price and good quality. Even an SD 16:9 monitor could work but I wouldn't want to miss any small details that didn't show up so well, like the wires on the floor. For that reason, whatever external monitor I get, it's got to be HD.