PDA

View Full Version : how about anamorphic 2.35 :1



vamshi
05-19-2005, 04:18 PM
hi guys

is it possible or i mean any adapter or lens available for gy-hd100?

vamshi

FiL
05-19-2005, 06:02 PM
well surely it's simpler to do this.

you shoot in 1280x720, then crop off 88 pixels off the top and bottom of your video, and you end up with 1280x544, which is essentially 2.35:1

so long as you've shot protecting for 2.35:1 you should be ok.


of course there's the loss of res, but 1280x544 would be fine for me.

vamshi
05-19-2005, 06:32 PM
well fil

thanx for the immediate reply.

you mean to say no need of any adapter/lens. i think the fujinon lens image projection is not so wide. what do you think. is there any other way not to loose the resolution. appreciating your answer.

vamshi

FiL
05-19-2005, 08:40 PM
well you can always crop your images to the right aspect as i explained above, it's no different to nowadays with other camcorders.


i'm not sure about anamorphic adapters for this camera, as it's native 16:9 i doubt there will be a huge market for 16:9 --> 2.35:1 particulary as cropping methods aren't so bad for 16:9-->2.35:1 but i could always be wrong.

contrast this with getting 4:3 SD to 16:9 here you'd have to crop loads off, hence there are 16:9 adapters about

Mike_Donis
05-20-2005, 09:14 AM
Actually, 2.35:1 is to 16:9 what 16:9 is t 4:3.

The main reason they don't have any native 2.35:1 adaptors for prosumer video cameras is because nobody would be able to watch your footage in 2.35 anyways, without a letterboxed image. The quality from a letterboxed image is just as good as - if not better than - downsampling anamorphic video to fit as letterboxed within a 16:9 native frame.

The only place I could see the quality being necessary is if you were going to a film-out, but the chances of that are so slim, that if you did in fact need one, your story would be so good that you wouldn't have to worry about the loss of resolution from cropping ;)

MattC
05-20-2005, 10:11 AM
So if you put an anamorphic adapter on a camera that shoots native 16:9 then you would wind up with a 2.35:1 image?

vamshi
05-20-2005, 10:35 AM
well thanks mike

just for curiosity, i like to watch panaromic style film than 16x9 boxed. Well can you tell me what is the frame size (instead of keeping your footage on 16x9 and squeezing it to anamorphic.)you have to use when you want to explode it onto 35mm film,and what resolution factor. answers greatly appreciated.

vamshi

FiL
05-23-2005, 10:15 AM
So if you put an anamorphic adapter on a camera that shoots native 16:9 then you would wind up with a 2.35:1 image?


good question, i can't answer it because i don't know enough, but simple maths does this.

ratios

4:3 is 1:1.3333
16:9 is 1:1.7777
then 1:2.35

normal anamorphic adapters convert 4:3 --> 16:9 that's a widening of pixels by

1.7777/1.3333 = 1.3333

if you start off at 16:9 and add that adapter you get

1.7777*1.3333= 2.37

so although i'm not very good with optics, and i might be very wrong here, if the anamorphic adapter simply widens the image by 1.3333 times, then you'll get 1:2.37 if you shoot native 16:9 with the adapter.


feel free to prove me wrong, i'm just guessing here


personally, i'd still just crop/leterbox a 16:9 image to 2.35 if i wanted that aspect ratio

Mike_Donis
05-23-2005, 01:06 PM
That's right, FiL - you would have a 2.37:1 aspect ratio if you put a 1.33x anamorphic adaptor on your camera. In 4:3, that would give you 16:9 (or 1.78:1), and in 16:9, it would give you 2.37:1. So you could get a "cinemascope" image by doing so.

The main reason I wouldn't do this is because for most viewings, it would be on a 16:9 set anyways - so it would keep the quality as high as possible to not distort the original image, and just shoot in regular 16:9 - letterbox bands just make the image shorter, and will give you a cinemascope ratio for composing your shots.


In film transfers, the resolution they use changes depending on the post house - most I think up-rez the image to 2K (which is 2000 pixels horizontally, and your aspect ratio will determine the vertical resolution).

Remember though, 99% of independent videos shot don't ever reach the film print stage - so shooting anamorphic to gain that extra bit of resolution won't be necessary, in most conditions. Most independent movies can be projected digitally at these festivals (the Toronto Film Festival, and Sundance now project digitally - to name a few of the big ones) - and a digital projection would generally require a 16:9 version, letterboxed to 2.35 anyways.

So for the most part, when getting 2.35, the easiest, most convenient, and even in most situations the highest-quality method is to letterbox your 16:9 native footage.

SergejIvanovits
05-24-2005, 03:40 AM
http://www.centuryoptics.com/products/dv/133x/133x.htm# - you can test how the 1.33 x converter works on the sample picture. It is not just to widening the pixels by 1,3333.

bilgami
05-24-2005, 07:33 AM
BiLGaMi Video Productions :thumbsup:

Does this converter work with the 100a


bilgami@hotmail.com
http://www.bilgamivideo.com (http://www.bilgamivideo.com/)

SergejIvanovits
05-24-2005, 08:22 AM
No.
http://www.centuryoptics.com/products/prodv/dvx100/dvx100.htm this what Century Optics can offer you for your DVX.

I'm sure they will make other products for HVX and ProHD. If you can keep your vertical resolution and get real 2.35 out of your HD camcorder, it wil give you a much better resolution for filmprint.

vamshi
05-27-2005, 03:21 PM
hi guys...back again

well about loss of resolution? no answer.

is there any anamorphic zoom lens...?

vamshi