2x anamorphic is too narrow :( - solution?

lpowell said:
The sample images in my Anamorphic Cinemascape thread are just JPEG frame grabs uploaded to a free image hosting site. Any modern browser should be able to display them.

MJPEG video has nothing but key frames, which I actually find easier to work with than AVCHD. At this point, there's no useful way to alter the frame size of AVCHD modes and no way to hack the GH2. The G2, however, shares the GH2's Extended Telecropping mode and touch-screen auto-focus features. In addition, the G2 is hackable much like the GF1, but unfortunately, the PAL<->NTSC patch does not yet work.
Click to expand...

i've been able to see them before, but now i have an icon that says i have to register or something
 
The only way to not lose resolution shooting for 16:9 is to shoot 4:3 with a 1.33x anamorphic, which looks the least anamorphic of all.

Shooting anamorphic imo begs for 2.37 or wider (although no 3.58), hence i like the box when shown on a 16:9 screen.
 
Last edited:
i'm going nuts!!
in order to make a 2x footage (shot on 16:9) to be 2.35:1,
i found out i need to squeeze the 1080 by 24% (that's an exact measure from "The Good Bad & Ugly").
so will someone please tell me in how much % exactly i need to stretch the 1920 ? (i think it's 48% but i just cannot tell if the image looks correct...)

thanks :)
 
With a 2x anamorphic adapter shooting in 1920x1080 mode, you have two choices to produce a 2.37:1 frame:

1280x540 frame:
Shrink the height of the footage to 540 and crop it horizontally down to 1280.

2560x1080 frame:
Stretch the width of the footage to 3840 and crop it horizontally down to 2560.
 
roei z said:
i'm going nuts!!
in order to make a 2x footage (shot on 16:9) to be 2.35:1,
i found out i need to squeeze the 1080 by 24% (that's an exact measure from "The Good Bad & Ugly").
so will someone please tell me in how much % exactly i need to stretch the 1920 ? (i think it's 48% but i just cannot tell if the image looks correct...)

thanks :)
Click to expand...

Like LPowell says : you multiply the 1.78 (16:9) with 1.333333 laterally (to get 2.37, also called incorrectly 21:9), so 1920 times 1.333333 gives you 2560. You of course don't scale the 1080, since you want to make the screen wider.


That said, you need to stretch as much as your anamorphic : if you have a 2x anamorphic, you need to stretch the 1920 to 3840 (to get a 3.58 aspect ratio with resolution 3840x1080)
 
Last edited:
johnnym said:
Like LPowell says : you multiply the 1.78 (16:9) with 1.333333 laterally (to get 2.37, also called incorrectly 21:9), so 1920 times 1.333333 gives you 2560. You of course don't scale the 1080, since you want to make the screen wider.


That said, you need to stretch as much as your anamorphic : if you have a 2x anamorphic, you need to stretch the 1920 to 3840 (to get a 3.58 aspect ratio with resolution 3840x1080)
Click to expand...

oh, ok, thanks :)
so- after i stretch to 3840, i can consider the proportions 'locked'? (so i could then start 'zooming out' to find me my preferable aspect)

* so because i shoot on 16:9 aspect i have to stretch more than half (3640) ?
 
Last edited:
roei z said:
oh, ok, thanks :)
so- after i stretch to 3840, i can consider the proportions 'locked'? (so i could then start 'zooming out' to find me my preferable aspect)
Click to expand...

That is correct.

roei z said:
* so because i shoot on 16:9 aspect i have to stretch more than half (3640) ?
Click to expand...

I don't understand where 3640 comes from.

Bottom line is that you need to multiply your aspect ratio, in this case 16:9 or 1.78 with the stretching coefficient of your anamorphic attachment in this case
2x.

So 1.78 x 2 = 3.58

If Vitaliy implements the high-res 4:3 mode, then we can shoot 4:3 or 1.33 times x2 (from your anamorphic) = 2.66 (original Cinemascope), which you can easily crop to 2.37 or 2.39 or 2.40 whatever is required for screening.

If you buy a 1.5x anamorphic (like LPowell has one from Isco), you can shoot 1.78 (16:9 widescreen) x 1.5 = 2.66

But the cheaper anamorphics (unlike the Isco) all stretch by a factor of 2, so our best hope is Vitaliy's implementation of the high-res 4:3 mode, so we can shoot high-res 2.66. For instance 1440x1080 (4:3) would then become 2880x1080 which can be cropped easily to 2560x1080 as the standard for (what is inaccurately called) 21:9 cinema tv's.

See here before your head spins off : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_(image)
 
Last edited:
3840 = 2 * 1920

No matter which unhacked video mode you shoot in, with a 2x anamorphic lens you need to double the width of the frame (or cut the height in half).

After you do that, you can crop the results to any size you like.
 
Hmmm. Maybe a camera expert can figure a way to physically mask the GH1 sensor in 16:9 video mode to 4:3? They used to mask the 35mm frame in film cameras to 2:35.1 Techniscope.
 
Last edited:
This is my #1 most wanted GH1/GH2 feature as well. Fingers crossed... wish I could help test/hack it but I lack the skills.
 
By masking, I mean precision positioning some black material, plastic film of some sort on both sides of the sensor to crop it to 4:3 in video mode.
 
johnnym said:
That is correct.



I don't understand where 3640 comes from.

Bottom line is that you need to multiply your aspect ratio, in this case 16:9 or 1.78 with the stretching coefficient of your anamorphic attachment in this case
2x.

So 1.78 x 2 = 3.58

If Vitaliy implements the high-res 4:3 mode, then we can shoot 4:3 or 1.33 times x2 (from your anamorphic) = 2.66 (original Cinemascope), which you can easily crop to 2.37 or 2.39 or 2.40 whatever is required for screening.

If you buy a 1.5x anamorphic (like LPowell has one from Isco), you can shoot 1.78 (16:9 widescreen) x 1.5 = 2.66

But the cheaper anamorphics (unlike the Isco) all stretch by a factor of 2, so our best hope is Vitaliy's implementation of the high-res 4:3 mode, so we can shoot high-res 2.66. For instance 1440x1080 (4:3) would then become 2880x1080 which can be cropped easily to 2560x1080 as the standard for (what is inaccurately called) 21:9 cinema tv's.

See here before your head spins off : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_(image)
Click to expand...


don't know how i got to 3640. late night wishful thinking.

now about 4:3- suppose it'll be possible.
what resolution will we have?
i worry about this cause i tried to take 4:3 still with the 2X and play with it.
after you tweak it back to the proportional 2X aspect, you will still need to UPSCALE the whole image to fit a 16:9 output, no?
this will also cause HUGE resolution loss. am i wrong?
 
roei z said:
don't know how i got to 3640. late night wishful thinking.

now about 4:3- suppose it'll be possible.
what resolution will we have?
i worry about this cause i tried to take 4:3 still with the 2X and play with it.
after you tweak it back to the proportional 2X aspect, you will still need to UPSCALE the whole image to fit a 16:9 output, no?
this will also cause HUGE resolution loss. am i wrong?
Click to expand...



Depends on what the resolution is. At this moment in video mode the 4:3 VGA recording is limited in resolution to 640x480, so shooting anamorphic will give you 1280x480 (2.66 aspect ratio = 1.33 x 2).

But if Vitaliy succeeds in upping the res on the 4:3 VGA mode, then it should be possible to shoot 1440x1080 (given card speeds can sustain this) and then you have full HD res. You could then use the 2 x 1440 over 1080 = 2880 / 1080 = 2.66 and crop it to 1.78 (16:9) = 1920 / 1080 (or 1920x1080 if you want to calculate the total Mpixels).

Again, i think this defeats the purpose of shooting anamorphic, because i think anamorphic footage begs for an (around) 2.40 aspect ratio. Shooting 16:9 anamorphic i personally will never do, but of course anyone can differ here in opinion. Not so long ago all cameras shot 4:3 usually limited to 640x480, and to get widescreen (16:9) they used an anamorphic (called widescreen) adapter, which stretched the image by 1.33x to get from 1.33( or 4:3)x1.33 = 1.78 (16:9).

So yes, in order to get to 16:9 from 8:3 (= 2 x 4:3) you will need to crop the image significantly, hence lose resolution. (which may be a good thing on the GH2 as i think it's too sharp for some purposes)
Or you can buy a 1.33x anamorphic adapter (like LPowell's Century Optics) and shoot 4:3 with that one, to arrive at 16:9.
 
roei z said:
thanks... so if it is such a resolution loss why is everybody so thrilled of getting 4:3 ??
Click to expand...


Because, unlike what i get from you, most are wanting to end up with footage wider than 16:9 (1.78). Like i said, i think there's little point in wanting to shoot 2x anamorphic for an end result that is 16:9.

The anamorphic look is almost exclusively found in films for cinema screening, hence has an aspect ratio of 2.40. If you don't want such a wide aspect ratio, there's no point in using a 2x anamorphic.

In that case, you can still use a 1.33x anamorphic attachment and shoot 4:3 with that, so that you get anamorphic 16:9.
 
sorry to bug about this, but-
am I not clear? maybe because it's not my native language..

of course I want anamorphic aspect (2.35:1 is best)

But if you shrink 4:3 vertically, you'll still need to upscale the whole image To fit an HD screen (unless you don't need more than 1440 horizontal. but that's not full HD !)
so- if you want to screen your footage on full HD resolution, you'll be left with an anamorphic 'box' in the middle of the screen - which means eventually have to upscale the whole image to fit 1920 horizontal.

Am I clear now ???? ;)
 
Last edited:
You need to multiply the 1440 x 2 (given you are shooting with a 2x anamorphic attachment).

So shooting 1440x1080, vertically your footage is 1080 which is like full HD. Horizontally your footage will be 2880 (1440x2), which you can crop horizontally to 2560 (x1080) which will give you 2.37 approximately.

In any case, you will have the full 1920x1080 covered.
 
Last edited:
oh, i see what you mean... it means i'll have to lose 640 sideways view in the end, right ?
less harm than losing 1920 (from the 3840) when shooting on 16:9 mode..

ok NOW i get it.. thanks !
 
I picked up the same lens as lpowell. The Century Optics. This one is closer to 2.40:1

For Mac users, EyeTV plays back anamorphic squeezed footage without transcoding. Just select Aspect Ratio>Wide. This gives you 2:35:1 from a 1.33x adapter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top