HVX/Anamorphic to DVD

D

darwinandpaine

Well-known member
I'm getting my 82-72 step-down ring today and was planning on shooting some HVX 720p/24n using the Panasonic anamorphic lens I have for my DVX (full-res 720p, 2.35:1 -- whoohoo!). The biggest problem I'm facing, is getting it on to a DVD.

So far, I've been bringing my FCP reference movie into DVDSP, putting it on a track and then selecting "16:9 Letterbox" for the "Display Mode." But I don't see any option for making the 16:9, 720p "anamorphic." Furthermore, the DVDSP manual says only, "...for Panavision titles significant letterboxing or pan-scan cropping is necessary. This processing must be done before the video is MPEG-encoded." What does that mean?

Can this even be done with the current toolset?
 
Whether it can be done or not, the question would mainly be "why?" :)

Think about a DVD for a second -- it's an inherently standard-def medium. It supports up to 16:9. If you want 2.35:1, you'd have to crop/letterbox your standard-def 16:9 footage to where you're working with no more than about 270 lines.

Why not just crop the 720 native footage? You'll have way more than enough res to start with, and a much easier resize. Check it: if you crop 720p to 2.35:1, you'll end up with 1280 x 540. That 540 will scale into the 270 of DVD at a 2:1 ratio, should avoid a lot of aliasing and jaggy artifacts.

Plus, you get to avoid the hassles and issues of working with the anamorphic adapter.

Finally, remember the anamorphic is a standard-def optic; I don't know how clear your image will be if you try to shoot high-def through that lens, but I would guess that it's not going to perform optimally...
 
Totally off topic: Sin City is 1.85... and I really like it when my movie takes up the entire screen on my widescreen television.

Why do you want it 2.35:1? I'm asking because I really want to know, by the way. =)
 
Kay. That's fine.

I just wanted to knwo, dude. I didn't know that people made creative decisions on which widescreen aspect ratio. Learn something new everyday.
 
Kholi said:
Kay. That's fine.

I just wanted to knwo, dude. I didn't know that people made creative decisions on which widescreen aspect ratio. Learn something new everyday.
Click to expand...


yeh I do it all the time...but for me i'm only working in SD so its really only being used so that when i do effects work theres a smaller (and thus quicker to render) area to work with.....

helps me out alot....plus i like the look of it...
 
Barry_Green said:
Finally, remember the anamorphic is a standard-def optic; I don't know how clear your image will be if you try to shoot high-def through that lens, but I would guess that it's not going to perform optimally...
Click to expand...

Well, there's the real kicker. In my excitement I'd completely forgotten about the lens being SD. Although, someone else has already done this and posted in the "footage/grabs" forums, and it looked pretty good.

You're right though about the standard resolution being enough --- particularly for DVD. But it would be cool to have full-rez 2.35:1 for a film out.

To answer the other question, I just love the 2.35:1 proportions. To me, there's something inherently more dramatic about that really wide screen. I know "Casablanca" and "The Adventures of Robin Hood" are 1.33:1, but what can I say? The ability to create all that negative space in the frame gets me giddy.

Thanks to everyone for your input. For the purposes of the DVD, I'll just crop. But I still think there's value in getting a true, full-res "anamorphic" look from this camera. Of course, Barry's right --- we're gonna need better optics for that.
 
Is there a test somewhere that compares cropped 2.35:1 and true 2.35:1 with the adapter, from the HVX? Would be cool to see the difference.
 
darwinandpaine said:
Well, there's the real kicker. In my excitement I'd completely forgotten about the lens being SD. Although, someone else has already done this and posted in the "footage/grabs" forums, and it looked pretty good.

You're right though about the standard resolution being enough --- particularly for DVD. But it would be cool to have full-rez 2.35:1 for a film out.

To answer the other question, I just love the 2.35:1 proportions. To me, there's something inherently more dramatic about that really wide screen. I know "Casablanca" and "The Adventures of Robin Hood" are 1.33:1, but what can I say? The ability to create all that negative space in the frame gets me giddy.

Thanks to everyone for your input. For the purposes of the DVD, I'll just crop. But I still think there's value in getting a true, full-res "anamorphic" look from this camera. Of course, Barry's right --- we're gonna need better optics for that.
Click to expand...

I like 1.85:1. I just watched Final Fantasy: Advent Children and it's anamorphic 1.85:1. I just really like seeing it in full 16:9, minus black bars, since I have a 16:9 television.

But I totally get ya duude. Here's to widescreen.
 
Personally, I find that unless I'm doing something with some really huge landscapes and an epic scale, I perfer to compose for 1.85 rather than 2.35. That said, I respect that it matters to you what ratio you shoot in. It always bugged me when people would ask, "why are you shooting in 16:9 when it's just a video camera?"

Anyway, I agree that simply doing a mask would be the smartest thing. Resolution wise, the difference really won't be that pronounced on a TV and it will make your life A LOT easier when editing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top