2.35:1 in Vegas

It's not that hard.

Also, your camera's chipset doesn't matter; it's your output. Vegas makes it quite easy to crop and uprez and keeps a quite a bit of quality in the process. Just because you shoot 4:3, you don't have to output ONLY as 4:3 with black bars. You can also just as easily output as 16:9.

No, you can't do actual "cinemascope"; I'm not aware of a 2:1 anamorphic adaptor for the DVX. But you can shoot 4:3, crop to 2.35:1, and output as 16:9 anamorphic, and your result will be identical to any 2.35:1 movie on DVD -- a 16:9 file with black bars on the top and bottom.

I'm sure any film festival can project it properly.
 
I am just going by what the projection engineer at AMC said to me. I wanted to rent an auditorium to show my film and my main worry was projecting the image. Even though I chose a 2.35 format i didn't want the film to look all funky when projected. So I am passing his information along for others.

Some festivals use theaters to project the projects, so it is a little advice to pass along with some of those with 2.35:1 export worries.
 
Well, the projectionist doesn't have enough information. He'd be right if you were stuck outputting the same aspect ratio that you shot, but you aren't.

You can, BTW, export a file which can be projected properly by a cinemascope lens (which stretches the image horizontally):

Start with a 4:3 image:

original4sy.jpg



Use pan/crop to crop to 2.35:1:

simplecrop1ys.jpg


Under "Source" in pan/crop, change "Maintain aspect ratio" to "no":

crop4pw.jpg


It will then stretch the 2.35:1 image to fill the 4:3 frame:

cinemascope2nk.jpg



You could frameserve this out to film, or if they can project electronic media (DVD, tape, etc.) through the lens, it should work.

Now, if you were to do that, getting the crop right is very important. If you take that last image into Paint and stretch it horizontally by changing the width to 177%, it comes out correctly.
 
Well cool, and thanks for the info. I will give it a try and post the results. I just want to make sure my film is prjected properly.
 
David Jimmerson, you are a genius.

Using the two pics you posted up a page ago, to go from 4:3 to 2.35:1, it should be around 640x270.

Out of generosity, I am going to post some pics of some 2.40:1, cause that is what I plan on using.
 
Last edited:
So, I've been using the following settings and then I use Event Pan/Crop and Match Output Aspect. It works great in editing. But then I render it (as .mov or .avi) and get this ugly ole' error:

helpme1.gif


helpme2.gif


Since field order has been set to progressive, I don't understand what's going wrong. And again, it all looks fine during editing. It's only when rendered does this interlace issue arise.

I haven't rendered to MPEG and burned to DVD yet to see what happens then. I did render to tape and got the same problem, though. I hope there's gonna be an easy solution to this...anyone know what I've obviously done wrong?
 
Last edited:
A few notes:

The footage was shot with a DVX100b on either 24p or 24p Advanced. The captured files themselves have the interlaced issues (that is, when I play the raw unedited capture files in VLC or Windows Media Player, they exhibit the same behaviour), but when placed in Vegas they play fine during project preview (I believe that's how it's supposed to be, anyway).

As a test, I've tried rendering various clips in a new project with the property settings as Vegas' default NTSC DV 24p (720x480, 23.976 fps) and then rendering with the default .avi template NTSC DV 24p (inserting 2-3 pulldown). I've also tried using 2-3-3-2 pulldown, setting the project properties at Vegas' default NTSC DV (720x480, 29.970 fps) and rendering as the .avi default template NTSC DV.

So far, nothing has worked. I've experimented furthermore with all types of mix and match and still I get this look on all footage. I'll try any test anyone can suggest!
 
Jason K said:
A few notes:

The footage was shot with a DVX100b on either 24p or 24p Advanced.
Click to expand...

That should be the problem, one is made to remove fields/frames in post so you get true 24P.

The other is filmed as 24P but converted to 60i. And there is no way to make that true 24P again.


Others please correct me on this one, since I dontwork with 24P and 24PA myself. But what I understand this should your problem.
 
Actually, 1.35:1 is REALLY 1.40:1. I have been researching this lately because I was getting confused. But here's what I found out: The standard in the 70s changed from 1.35:1 to 1.40:1 but the name stuck. You can go to apple trailers and look at the "properties" of the downloaded quicktime files and you will see that in 720p the pixel aspect ratio is 1280x533 and in 1080p the ratio is 1920x800 (1920 is 1.4 times 800, not 1.35). These are for cinema releases and that is the ratio. Those are the pixel aspect ratios you should export at.
 
Texas Jones said:
in 720p the pixel aspect ratio is 1280x533 and in 1080p the ratio is 1920x800 .
Click to expand...

Your above statement is technically wrong.
You mean the resolution is 1280x533. Those are not PARs those are resolutions and have nothing to do with pixel aspect ratio. Those resolutions could come with any sort of pixel aspect ratio.
 
Last edited:
Just another method for anyone interested. I just joined here - but this is a topic dear to my heart!

I just use "pan/crop" and set the height to 368. This worked out the closest to 2.35 from my math.

The beauty of doing this at clip level (in 16:9 or even 4x3) is that you can fine tune the framing of each clip.

I shoot almost everything I ever do for 2.35. I have a preview monitor I use that I've fashioned a 2.35 hood for so we can frame for it, and I always end up tweaking the framing in post.

I'm at this moment rendering a copy of my feature that I put together in 2.35 this way. As was said, you do a 16:9 project and render in that format and any DVD player in the world will properly show your 2.35. If you are outputting a file for a digital projector, the 16:9 format with 2.35 bars will work flawlessly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top