Does the 300 have 2:35.1 guide lines? or something that can be used as it?

  • Thread starter Thread starter G.P.
  • Start date Start date
G

G.P.

Guest
I would love to know if the HPX300 has some kind of way in the viewfinder to properly frame for 2.35:1 or 2.40:1. This is something that would be VERY useful to me. I know a few cameras have built in guidelines in the viewfinder that you can turn on via a menu setting... Is this possible with the 300?

if not would it be possible to add that feature in a firmware upgrade?

thanks again for the info
 
Last edited:
Uh, why?

The camera cannot shoot 2:35 anamorphic so you would have to mask anyway. Just mask the LED or your monitor.

Dan
 
puredrifting said:
Uh, why?

The camera cannot shoot 2:35 anamorphic so you would have to mask anyway. Just mask the LED or your monitor.

Dan
Click to expand...


because a lot of people like to crop to 2.35:1 for the footage. EXp the StarWars films shot with the Sony F900's they were not shot anamorphic, they just cropped the top and bottom to that aspect. And if you are using the viewfinder for hand held shots, there is no way to know if you're framing is correct other than guessing.
 
I haven't shot with a professional video camera that has 2.35 markings in the VF yet. I am sure that the Viper and Genesis and those sort of cameras do but I have yet to see a $7,600.00 street camera or even a $20 to 40K video camera that has any 2.35 markings.

Dan
 
puredrifting said:
I haven't shot with a professional video camera that has 2.35 markings in the VF yet. I am sure that the Viper and Genesis and those sort of cameras do but I have yet to see a $7,600.00 street camera or even a $20 to 40K video camera that has any 2.35 markings.

Dan
Click to expand...

Really? I'm pretty sure that the XHA1 does, and a lot of pro bodies do.
 
Simple.

Just frame with 2:35 in mind, and use a 2:35 matte in Final Cut. The you have some look around room.

Just like hard matting 4 perf s35.
 
believe it or not a ton of pro cameras do have it, its just buried in the settings, yes the A1 has it and the H1 as well. JVC has it, and the sony F900 does, as well as viper, and thos cameras are in the 40k and under range. It kinda surprises me that its not a standard thing for all cameras to have guides for different aspects. I mean comeon all it is, is 2 lines on the vf... I guess i'll have to make my own with hair like I did on my other camera haha. (yes you heard right, you can make guide lines with hair, gaff tape, and really really fine work with tweezers.)
 
Jan:

Add 2.35 and 2.40 to the next wave of cameras. The people have spoken and the people want it. I don't get it, but if people want it, Panasonic has been pretty good about user requests.

D
 
Last edited:
I still can't see the point. Who needs to shoot fake 2.35 or 2.40 and why? All you are doing is losing picture quality by either masking or blowing up a 16:9 picture? Am I missing something but none of these low end camcorders shoot anamorphic CinemaScope.

Just don't get it.

Dan
 
puredrifting said:
I still can't see the point. Who needs to shoot fake 2.35 or 2.40 and why? All you are doing is losing picture quality by either masking or blowing up a 16:9 picture? Am I missing something but none of these low end camcorders shoot anamorphic CinemaScope.

Just don't get it.

Dan
Click to expand...

What is there to miss? Different aspect ratios are useful in different scenarios. Just because you're losing a little resolution doesn't mean that the images are useless. Haven't you ever shot 1.78 on a DVX?
 
Just to make a point about masking for 2.35 or 2.40:1 aspect ratios in a frame that is already in the "16x9" ratio... You aren't loosing resolution when "blowing up". Your WIDTH in frame remains exactly the same, thus no actual sharpness in picture will be lost at all, only cropping of height. If you blow up to film or project digitally a 1080p 16x9 frame, and then do the same exact but with the top and bottom covered with just black space to crop, the resolution stays exactly the way it was since there is no zooming into the frame needed for this aspect change. The only time you could lose resolution is if you were trying to project with an Anamorphic squeeze created in post, to fit 35mm film the same way a real anamorphic film would be shot. But no one would ever do that since you would have an easier time to just take the anamorphic lens off the theaters projector and shoot the 2Pref "fake" anamorphic in the standard 1.85 film gate size.

But thanks for everyone response its interesting to see more and more people are growing to like this aspect ratio again, It was all the rage when it first came out and they even started with ridiculous ratios way wider than 2.40:1 for some films. They made special theaters just to show them. It brings that look right back. Thanks guys :)
 
Alex.Mitchell said:
What is there to miss? Different aspect ratios are useful in different scenarios. Just because you're losing a little resolution doesn't mean that the images are useless. Haven't you ever shot 1.78 on a DVX?
Click to expand...

What is a practical scenario for an $8,000.00 1920 x 1080 camera to shoot 2.40:1?

Actually, yes, and it looks worse because you are cutting down the total resolution of the picture, the 300 would be the same, why crop out overall resolution? On the DVX100, the LA7200 lens is the right way to do it, the in camera fake 16:9 looks not as good. The production company that I was working for back in the DVX days had the LA7200s for all of their DVXs.

I say if you have an actual application that needs that (not web clips and DVD or broadcast, 2.40 looks stupid on the television screen for the most part, the image is too small, I can only see it being practical for projection), why not shoot with a tool that is right for that job? Film or an HD camcorder that is designed to that resolution. Wouldn't a RED be much better for that? I just find it hard to believe that most users of this kind of camera will be shooting CinemaScope aspect ratio for any practical reason other to pretend they are shooting real CinemaScope or VistaVision. But hey, what do I know, maybe a lot of people want to do this? It's like all of the people who want to hook up the HPX300 to separate SS recorders that shoot substantially worse codecs that the 300s native AVC Intra. I cannot fathom it, other than I think some people just want to be different. There is practical reason to downgrade a camera's internal codec but there are numerous threads o n DVX User for people who want to exactly that. I just cannot understand the reasoning.

D
 
Last edited:
puredrifting said:
What is a practical scenario for an $8,000.00 1920 x 1080 camera to shoot 2.40:1?
Click to expand...

Here's one: I have an $8,000.00 camera and would like to compose my project for 2.35:1.

puredrifting said:
Actually, yes, and it looks worse because you are cutting down the total resolution of the picture, the 300 would be the same, why crop out overall resolution? On the DVX100, the LA7200 lens is the right way to do it, the in camera fake 16:9 looks not as good. The production company that I was working for back in the DVX days had the LA7200s for all of their DVXs.
Click to expand...

I agree that, under idea conditions, the LA7200 looks better than squeeze. However, it can be pretty finicky and I'd rather not be bothered by its limitations most of the time. A few extra lines of resolution here or there isn't worth the flexibility I feel like I lose.

puredrifting said:
I say if you have an actual application that needs that (not web clips and DVD or broadcast, 2.40 looks stupid on the television screen for the most part, the image is too small, I can only see it being practical for projection...
Click to expand...

What's this need business? No one needs to shoot 2.35. People shoot it because they want to shoot it. If you don't like it, don't shoot it and/or don't watch it. You're being pretty draconian about the whole thing.

puredrifting said:
...why not shoot with a tool that is right for that job? Film or an HD camcorder that is designed to that resolution. Wouldn't a RED be much better for that?
Click to expand...

Technically, there are only a few systems really designed to be used primarily in 2.35; 65mm or 2-perf 35 are the only things I can think of. Every other system has to use anamorphic lenses, which can be a huge hassle, or cropping, which means you lose some resolution. Very few tools are "right" for 2.35, and the ones that aren't require some compromise. It's all a question about whether or not you're willing to put up with those compromises for artistic reasons.

puredrifting said:
I just find it hard to believe that most users of this kind of camera will be shooting CinemaScope aspect ratio for any practical reason other to pretend they are shooting real CinemaScope or VistaVision.
Click to expand...

Most users probably won't shoot 2.35 because most people don't really want to. Still, what's this about pretending? If you frame 2.35 and you show in 2.35 then your project is 2.35:1, whether it's anamorphic or letterboxed. You might not be using the full sensor or display format, but who's to say that is an invalid approach? Honestly, this whole thing sounds like all those people who moaned about how they hated widescreen DVDs on their 4:3 TVs because there was letterboxing. That's how the people making the project wanted it to look and be framed, and you're just going to have to deal with it.
 
Alex:

I think the tone I am trying to convey is one more of incredulity and friendly debate over a beer, not one of "WTF are you trying to do that!" As we all know, discussion boards and the web are not really great for communicating degrees of subtlety.

You are confusing my inquiry about the why as being an artistic judgement, which it is not. I am not being Draconian about it, if you want it, you want it and that's fine. I am just trying to understand where you can practically exhibit your 2.35 or 2.40 masterpiece. The only place that makes sense is in a theater with projection. But hey, many of us are artists, who says artists have to make sense?

I have produced two documentaries for Paramount on VistaVision and Cinemascope, worked on the Blu Ray for "How The West Was Won" for Warner Bros, have actually had a chance to shoot VistaVision once (only a snip test but I can say I shot VistaVision) and have been lucky enough to interview most of the living experts and several legendary directors and DPs about VistaVision, three strip Cinerama and Cinemascope, have even had a chat with Mr. Lucas and Mr. Daviau and Mr. Jackson specifically about it so I am very well versed about the artistic reasons one would want to shoot it.

Now if you have this to exhibit it on that might make a bit more sense http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/ssimmons/story/when_your_169_tv_isnt_enough_theres_219/ But I doubt very many people will have these. Sorry, it is my shortcoming, I always have to question why when I see users who want to do things that at first glance, don't make sense. Nothing personal against you or anyone else who wants to do it. Just seems like the wrong tool for the job to me. So if the 300 was marked for 2.35 or 2.40, I have to hear what you would shoot with it and where you would exhibit it. Just in the spirit of a discussion ;-)

Best,

Dan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top