1.33x anamorphic to produce 16:9 final?

G

Greg_E

Veteran
How about a discussion of a subject I don't see much content on? What about producing anamorphic source files for a 16:9 video distribution? This was popular in the standard definition days to get 16:9 from your 4:3 camera, but what about today? Is it a valid workflow to create that "cinematic" look on content produced for broadcast, while retaining the full broadcast raster?

Since my camera will do higher than SD resolutions in the 4:3 mode (thanks to the hack) I'll be fooling with this, but it doesn't seem to be common practice now that 16:9 sensors are kind of the norm for video work. Or is it extremely common and I'm just not seeing it because the squeeze isn't pronounced enough with the smaller ratio of 1.33x?
 
People are taking a similar approach in quite large numbers with narrative TV work at the moment, shooting anamorphic and cropping to 16:9 for delivery. However I gather most are using full 2x anamorphics (for the more pronounced optical aberrations) and just living with the hit in resolution. The cameras are sharp enough these days that they get away with it I suppose.
 
No not an anamorphic deliverable, a 16:9 deliverable based off of a squeezed 4:3 original. Didn't know if this was a trend but it seems logical to me with sensors than can do 1920x1440 or higher resolutions in 4:3 mode. With 2.5K and 4K (or UHD) sensors I could see using a 2x and cropping to fit.

Anyway I just thought it was worth some discussion because I haven't seen much on this subject since the standard definition days where people where cheating to get to EDTV ratio (or "enhanced widescreen" as some stations called it). And I guess I haven't noticed it on TV yet, but again it does make sense to me to be doing this.
 
Well a 4:3 shooting 2X anamorphic will give you a 2.40:1 aspect ratio, which will then need to be fit into a 16x9 screen for broadcast which means letterbox.

The only advantage to using a 1.33 X anamorphic on a 4:3 to give you a 16X9 image, if you call it an advantage, would be any of the flairs or slightly distorted image the anamorphic provides. And that stuff can be done in After Effects, without the expense of purchasing a monitor with de-squeeze to properly frame your image while shooting.
 
Last edited:
I keep reading where people say you NEED a monitor to squeeze the image so you can properly frame the shot... How did the old timers get by with an optical viewfinder when they were shooting with anamorphic lenses and film? I'd like to think that if you did this enough, you would become accustomed to seeing things stretched and just work with it.
 
Old timers? Switching to my old man voice... We used a viewfinder ground glass de-squeeze sonny. :grin:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top