1.78 vs 2.35, etc, what does the hvx200 record in? Do distributors take anything?

Clint Nitkiewiz Hernandez

Clint Nitkiewiz Hernandez

Well-known member
So I am shooting using hvx200, 1920x 1080pa,

but this does not look like 1.78, it is much wider, not as long looking, etc,

What are the differences in 1.78 and 2.35

Does the hvx200 record 2.35, is it possible to record 1.78? Or put matte layers of some sort? Would I even want to do this or keep the whole frame?

Will a distributor reject the film if it is not in 1.78 or 2.35?

Thanks.
 
The HVX shoots 16:9 which = 1.77777777 etc, or rounded to 1.78 for short.

The CCD's are native 16:9/ 1.78 and cannot shoot anything else in HD.

What you see in HD is 1.78. Perhaps because the LCD has letterboxing, it appears to be wider?

Mid 20th century, the United States film standard was set at 1.85 while Europe set it at 1.66.... hence the birth of 16:9/1.78... a middle ground of the two.

Widescreen, which you incorrectly refer to as "2.35" is called anamorphic widescreen. The images are captured by special lenses which squeeze the wide aspect ratio onto normal (35mm/super 35mm) film.

BUT 2.35 has been dead since the 1970's and Anamorphic widescreen has been "2.40" (2.39 exact) ever since, despite amateur filmmakers masking 2.35 by result of ignorance and the unknown question of why DVD's advertise 2.35 when the films were shot 2.40 (2.39). Who knows.

I do know that it is impossible to shoot anamorphic on the HVX. Perhaps possible with some special diopter... but I am unaware of such a device and if it does exist, is probably is plagued with optical issues.
 
Last edited:
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
Widescreen, which you incorrectly refer to as "2.35" is called anamorphic widescreen. The images are captured by special lenses which squeeze the wide aspect ratio onto normal (35mm/super 35mm) film.

BUT 2.35 has been dead since the 1970's and Anamorphic widescreen has been "2.40" (2.39 exact) ever since, despite amateur filmmakers masking 2.35 by result of ignorance and the unknown question of why DVD's advertise 2.35 when the films were shot 2.40 (2.39). Who knows.
Click to expand...

Jeez dude, take it easy.

If you shoot HD you're always going to be shooting 16:9, but once you get into post you can put on a 1.85 matte, a 2.35:1 matte, a 2.39:1 matte, heck, you can even do a 4:3 matte if you really wanted to. As far as it looking wider, I think that's just your mind playing tricks on you.
 
Hey, my parents were murdered by 2.35 aspect ratios, you don't know what I've been through! My therapist has said I have made very good progress. :)

I didn't mean for my post to sound aggressive against Clint. It was more of a lash out against filmmaking society as a whole. Somehow, the industry won't stop referring to a dead aspect ratio. It's been 38 years. I don't know how this lives on. Apologies.

p.s. I know the differences between the two are practically nothing, but if I wasn't such a technical nut, I wouldn't be a camera department guy.:beer:
 
Last edited:
This is just as a follow up. I want to know what are the digital projectors throwing on the cinema screens? 1.777, 1.85, 2.33, 2.35, 2.39, 2.4 -- what?

Personally I like to see my DVD movies as 16:9 on the modern LCD and Plazma screens. I don't like black lines on these home screens.

On the Internet, ok, anything goes -- who can control it? Frankly, on the Internet I prefer 4:3 simply because there is more image, and the files don't seem to shrink when I lay in 16:9 format by cropping onto the Youtube screen. (?!?)
 
Well in that last while I've been framing and shooting everything for 2.39:1. I found that clients are just absolutely loving the format and it adds just one more element for a theatrical look.

I can also deliver that aspect in any resolution the client wants which is another big benefit.

If someone doesn't like black bars and wants pan and scan everything too friggin bad. When I watch movies like lawrence of arabia the last thing I need is to have those sweeping vistas butchered up on the side for a stupid television set.
 
craigbowman said:
If someone doesn't like black bars and wants pan and scan everything too friggin bad. When I watch movies like lawrence of arabia the last thing I need is to have those sweeping vistas butchered up on the side for a stupid television set.
Click to expand...

I also hate it, is like cuting the edges of a painting....But sadly there are people that don't think like this..........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top