2:35:1 Aspect Ratio

avatuar

avatuar

Well-known member
Hey guys how are we creating the cinematic 2:35:1 without losing our resolution in vagas 5?
 
Re: 2:35:1 Aspect Ratio

We're cropping to it, just like we would with 16:9 or 1.85:1. You have to make your own preset for it, though.
 
avatuar said:
Don't you lose resolution when you crop it like that?
Click to expand...
I never subscribed to that mindset. Yeah, you're seeing less of the recorded image when you letterbox - so technically, you're seeing less pixels and in effect, it's "less resolution," but you aren't "lowering the resolution" of the image that you've already captured. With or without the letterbox, whatever is in the 16:9 area (or 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 or whatever) stays exactly the same. When people say that letterboxing "lowers the resolution of your image" it makes it sound like you're somehow degrading the image that you've already recorded, and that's obviously not true.

All things being equal, I'd rather have a 4:3 CCD of high resolution that will give me room to crop my images vertically than a 16:9 CCD that locks me into this aspect ratio and requires that every shot must be perfect the first go around.
 
There's something to be said for that; however, with a 16:9 CCD, you get to use all the pixels on the CCD, whereas with cropping, you're throwing away a significant chunk of them. Using 16x9 CCDs definitely gives you higher resolution.

However, the trade-off IS, as you say, not having as much leeway to reframe in post.

Now, none of this matters if you're just looking to watch on a 4:3 TV. Crop, mask, native 16:9 CCDs; you won't be able to tell the difference much, if at all. Where it matters is in making an anamorphic DVD for viewing on a widescreen 16:9 TV, particularly an HD set.
 
Would native 16:9 CCDs on the DVX mean shooting in the stretch mode? If you shoot letterbox you're not using all the pixels, right? If this is true then shooting 4:3 and then cropping to 2.35:1 would mean you have less resolution than if you shot stretch 16:9 and then cropped to 2.35:1. Is this correct?
 
No. In squeeze mode, you're using the same number of pixels for the actual picture as you are in letterbox mode. What squeeze mode does is take the image between the black bars and stretch it into the full frame. It's the same resolution. (And it should be called "stretch mode," because that's what it does, but they call it "squeeze" mode, because that's what it looks like.)
 
2:35:1 Aspect Ratio

Jubal28 said:
We're cropping to it, just like we would with 16:9 or 1.85:1. You have to make your own preset for it, though.
Click to expand...

How do you make a 2:35:1 Aspect Ratio preset in Vegas?

Ray
 
I hope this works:


ntsc2351mg.th.gif


Use this and then RIGHT CLICK and SAVE AS

http://img206.exs.cx/img206/3628/ntsc2351mg.gif
 
Jubal28 said:
No. In squeeze mode, you're using the same number of pixels for the actual picture as you are in letterbox mode. What squeeze mode does is take the image between the black bars and stretch it into the full frame. It's the same resolution. (And it should be called "stretch mode," because that's what it does, but they call it "squeeze" mode, because that's what it looks like.)
Click to expand...
If that's all it does (I've never used it), then why not shoot in normal mode and have some room to crop in post? Both squeeze mode and letterbox mode seem utterly pointless to me if you aren't gaining any resolution from them. What would be absolutely fantastic is if they would offer a semi-transparent 16:9 overlay on the LCD to show you framing for that aspect ratio while you shoot, but not record it to tape. That way you have room to crop in post, but you can much better judge what you're framing for during production. Why no one has thought of this is beyond me.
 
Haakon said:
If that's all it does (I've never used it), then why not shoot in normal mode and have some room to crop in post?
Click to expand...

That is indeed what I do.

And as John says, transparent tape works just as well.
 
I can think of at least one reason for including squeeze and in camera masking. No decompression/recompression of the image in post is required to achieve the 16:9 ratio. The signal, masked or anamorphically stretched, is manipulated in camera, presumably prior to compression. So you save one compression "generation". At least that's what I expect the purpose is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top