I've heard people say this and their explanations seemed valid. I ran into this article that says just the opposite. Tell me what you think?
To those who say to film in 4:3 then crop to 16:9
- Thread starter Sheppy52
- Start date
i don't know if i read the right thing i had to click on a few pages...i guess i found it. the difference to me is and i said this on another thread...if you shoot 4x3 then you have to set the camera at a certain distance to achieve the same shot, albeit closer, with an anamorphic lens. however this crying over cropping and throwing away resolution is moot because in "hollywood" it happens all the time. if the professionals can mask and matte frames when things go wrong or to frame a shot differently who are we to complain. i believe it's the director's commentary on "aliens vs. predator" who says he doesn't like anamorphic lenses becauses he likes to capture more of the area so that if he wants to frame a shot differently he has that option instead of being stuck with the shot because using the lens if you change the frame of a shot you then have to fix the barrel distortion.
ah but we are talking about a 35mm film frame compared to a 1/3 CCD :grin:
but seriously it all comes down to choice...
ah but we are talking about a 35mm film frame compared to a 1/3 CCD :grin:
but seriously it all comes down to choice...
scannon
Well-known member
novelt said:
Whats the point? Everything about framing, lighting, camera moves, exposure, etc. is about choice. But perhaps the person paying for the product would like the best quailty of the money. If this is a hobby and you are the only one to please then life is easier.
You certainly answered you own question by pointing out that 1/3 ccd's and film are different. But masking/matting film does not loose resolution because it is not shown on scanning displays or scaled (unless down converted for video DVD).
Also for small sreen display the differences in approach are less noticable but when you get to large screens, say above 42" the differences in your approach will be more distinguishable.
BTW shooting 4:3 and protecting 16:9 has nothing to do with anamorphic adaptors. With anamorphic your shooting 16:9 on 4:3 chips. This video is optically altered on the horizontal axis but no the vertical. Anamorphic produces the best in camera 16:9 on 4:3 chips vs other methods like squeeze mode. But with a lot of limitations.
Shoot 4:3 protect 16:9 requires you to center your content in a 4:3 frame so you can letterbox in post or, convert the video aspect ratio using products like
Photozoom, Instant HD or just streatch the 4:3 video to fit a wide aspect template in you NLE. Again choice as to quality.
S Cannon
you start off by kinda saying i'm wrong and then close with this...
ain't that what i said?
don't know i'm producing a feature with 3 investors and distributor waiting for the final product. i guess it's not just me.
and either film or DV even HD if you use an anamorphic you are stuck with that shot. sure film may be more forgiving, but you still need to correct the barrel distortion. i think you think i'm saying every shot is on center and you are reframing the shot on center. i'm not...what if you more the frame more to the left or right then your anamorphic shot is now off-balance and will look irregular when stretched out. that's why i'm saying you need to correct the distortion.
ain't that what i said?
don't know i'm producing a feature with 3 investors and distributor waiting for the final product. i guess it's not just me.
and either film or DV even HD if you use an anamorphic you are stuck with that shot. sure film may be more forgiving, but you still need to correct the barrel distortion. i think you think i'm saying every shot is on center and you are reframing the shot on center. i'm not...what if you more the frame more to the left or right then your anamorphic shot is now off-balance and will look irregular when stretched out. that's why i'm saying you need to correct the distortion.
Last edited:
William_Robinette
Shallow Member
Or you could make sure you shoot it right the first time 
Personally I would rather shoot anamorphic and be stuck with a composition on a shot then loose resolution by cropping but still have the option to reframe.
Personally I would rather shoot anamorphic and be stuck with a composition on a shot then loose resolution by cropping but still have the option to reframe.
Cheesesailor77
Veteran
i like to shoot 4x3 and crop. My choice
then again I dont have the adapter, and if i did I'd probably use it.
But then again i shoot everything 2.35:1 so I would still crop it and have some wiggle room in post.
the answer is there is no right way, its personal choice, even if that choice is made by a client or invester instead of you.
So unless the question is which is the best choice if i want the most rez, or which is the best choice if i want the most options in post, i dont really see the point of this thread except to stoke flames
then again I dont have the adapter, and if i did I'd probably use it.
But then again i shoot everything 2.35:1 so I would still crop it and have some wiggle room in post.
the answer is there is no right way, its personal choice, even if that choice is made by a client or invester instead of you.
So unless the question is which is the best choice if i want the most rez, or which is the best choice if i want the most options in post, i dont really see the point of this thread except to stoke flames
cheesesailor i completely agree and i've used the anamoprhic lens and even with "shooting right the first time" there was barrel distortion. those with one will know what i'm talking about. now maybe the higher end panavision lenses don't do it, but my adapter does especially towards the edge of the frame.
but i do see the need for some fire insurance. i kid, i kid.
but i do see the need for some fire insurance.
i kid, i kid.
Ok ill chime inhere...... when using the ana lense there is some barrel distortion.. this can be fixed in post if you want to. Anyway, one of the benefits of the ana lense is when you want to frame for 2:35. Doing this with original DVX footage shot in 4:3 or squeeze means a big resolution drop... with the ana lense your keeping a worthwhile amount more. (not to mention the increased res on a 16:9 shot).
PaPa
Major Contributor
Remember those behind the scene DVD you have watched tiem and time again? Like me? Hehe, well if you watch the action being shot and they show a shot of a monitor. Youll notice that its all filmed in 4x3 with a 2.35:1 box squared out to show what portion of the screen is being printed to film.
The difference? They are cropping the tops and bottoms off but because its being printed to 35mm, maximum resolution can be attained because it all has to do with the grain, where as on mini dv, your keeping the entire resolution of a smal 4x3 area and cutting even more of it off?
The result? You can get the same dimensions but your doing it in a standard 4x3 definition screen whereas the pros do the same thing but print that 2.35:1 section to a much larger portion of the film stock, therefor giving the wider HUGe screen frame in the cinemas.
The difference? They are cropping the tops and bottoms off but because its being printed to 35mm, maximum resolution can be attained because it all has to do with the grain, where as on mini dv, your keeping the entire resolution of a smal 4x3 area and cutting even more of it off?
The result? You can get the same dimensions but your doing it in a standard 4x3 definition screen whereas the pros do the same thing but print that 2.35:1 section to a much larger portion of the film stock, therefor giving the wider HUGe screen frame in the cinemas.