2.35 ???

C

chaoticlock

New member
Hi,

Is it possible to shoot 2.35 with anamorphic lenses using the mini35 adapter on the DVX100??

anyone has tried that?
 
Re: 2.35 ???

it should be possible, I don't know what it'd look like though and you'd obviously have to stretch your 4:3 frame out to 2.35:1

It would also be very expensive and very dim. You lose light through both the anamorphic lens and the mini35...i don't know how many stops that'd be...but you can safely guess that you'd need a lot more light.
 
Re: 2.35 ???

You'd have trouble finding the lenses, too.

2.39 anamorphic goes onto film using a lens with a 2x squeeze. Because the negative area used when shooting anamorphic is *about* 1.2:1, you get *about* 2.4:1 as the finished aspect ratio.

With video however, because we have a 4:3 CCD, the same lens would give us a 2.66:1 aspect ratio, considerably wider than 2.35. If you wanted a 2.35 image, you'd crop and stretch the sides of the picture, which would lower quality on its own - much less the initial softness incurred by using the Mini35 in the first place...

Unless you can find a lens that'll do a 1.78x squeeze, you're SOL for shooting in true 2.35 with the DVX...
 
Re: 2.35 ???

If you have a XL2 with an anamorphic 16:9 adapter? Or you use a DVX or PD150 in 16:9 mode with an extra anamorphic adapter? You should get 2.35:1. But how do you export the frames from the timeline? Do you still are using 720x576 and 2:1 aspect ratio or something else? What is the pixel resolution for film? Or if I would like to make a 2.35:1 on DVD. I use a project setting 720 x 576 (480) with 1.422 (pal) pixel aspect ratio for a widescreen DVD and scale the new one into this format?
 
Re: 2.35 ???

I don't. If you are using an anamorphic adapter with an nativ 16:9 you capture more of the total picture than with the nativ 16:9 only. TAke a look at this :

http://www.centuryoptics.com/products/dv/16x9/16x9.htm

In Premier you can edit 2:1 or just scale the video to size in a 16:9 setup. I guess you deinterlace with DVfilm/Vegas or Premier before you scale the video to the 16:9.
 
Re: 2.35 ???

Yes but an anamorphic adapter and true 16:9 will NOT give 2.35. It will give much much wider cinemascope (2.55, 2.66)
 
Re: 2.35 ???

No, it'll be 2.37.

Using Cinema anamorphics on a regular 4:3 screen will give you the 2.66 aspect ratio, because cine anamorphics are a 2:1 squeeze, and 2.0 x 1.33 = 2.66.

Video anamorphics are 1.33333:1. So you take 16:9 (which is 1.78:1) and multiply that by 1.33 and you get 2.37:1.

However, we all still believe that it's fairly pointless to do this because you'll end up with a picture that won't display properly on any TV's and will need to be digitally re-sized and letterboxed. You could just as easily get that wider field of view by using a wide-angle adapter and letterboxing, and then at least you wouldn't go through the digital re-size process...
 
Re: 2.35 ???

Final output is a concern.  If you are going straight to DVD, this would be my suggestion:

I've been working on this very thing for months now.  My compromise is to shoot everything with the DVX/Pana Ana Adapter @ 16:9, edit in a 16:9 timeline, then print bars as a last step before encoding to an anamorphic 16:9 DVD.  The advantage to this is that you can cheat your framing up or down a smidge if you need to in order to get the best 2.35:1 image.

Here's how I do it:  using a Mac running FCPHD I edit the footage.  I use the PostIt note program "Stickies" to make a floating frame to mask the top and bottom of my final output image window to 2.35:1.  Then I use that guide to adjust the program image up or down slightly until all the footage looks great through my "framing mask."  I take the resulting 16:9 footage and output it uncompressed via QT then back in to FCPHD as one file on my timeline, then apply the 2.35:1 bars.  It all looks great.

I have to do this extra step because I found that the widescreen bars would get screwed up when you alter the image position of a clip.  It takes extra time and HD space, but it's easy and the end result is what I'm looking for.

My motto: Cinemascope RULES!!
 
Re: 2.35 ???

I'm confussed - as usual. - If I shoot in widescreen (lettered box mode) with a anamorphic adapter on the DVX what aspect ratio will I have when I render and burn a 16/9 mpeg2 DVD for viewing on widescreen.
 
Re: 2.35 ???

Would 2.37:1 be an appropriate aspect ration if I were to transfere to film or present in a film festival?. Is the .02 difference a big deal?
 
Re: 2.35 ???

Nobody on earth could tell the difference between 2.35 and 2.37, and in fact most widescreen movies are now shot at 2.39, and even then the actual displayed image all depends on the projectionist, etc...
 
Re: 2.35 ???

I thought it might be fun to compose a 2.37:1 short film (very short) with the DVX.
Thanks Barry,
 
Re: 2.35 ???

Are you absolutely certain Barry? I seem to remember seeing some footage that (I assume was shot with the anamorphic adapter and squeeze mode) was much wider than I am used to seeing (I see 2.35 almost 100% of the time).

I'll post a link when I can find/remember what footage I was looking at.
 
Re: 2.35 ???

The anamorphic is a 1.33:1 squeeze. Letterbox/Squeeze mode is a 1.33:1 squeeze. And video is normally 1.33:1.

So: 1.33 x 1.33 x 1.33 = 2.37.

Someone may have cropped their video down to be even wider (I think IAL did that with some of his videos) but the base aspect ratio is 2.37.
 
Re: 2.35 ???

Not really... in fact films that say they are 2.35:1 are in fact closer to 2.39:1 or 2.40:1. They simply call it 2.35 for tradition's sake as that is what the standard used to be.

The amount of quality lost in that re-sizing/re-rendering is way more than you get by using both the 16x9 and Pana Ana adapter.

It's better to shoot with the Ana adapter and then crop to letterboxed 2.35:1 with the amount of trouble it saves you and quality loss.

If you really *must* do both for some reason then 2.37 should be accepted by anyplace that will display it. Unless you're printing to film however, most places will be unable to screen it at the true 2.37 aspect ratio as digital projectors simply don't do that. You'd end up having to stretch the image to 16x9 and then letterbox it to 2.37. This causes WAY more hassles and difficulties than it's worth though.

PS: Sorry for restating what you said Barry. I forgot to read the second page :P
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top