C100: Is the 2.35:1 marker ACTUALLY 2.39:1?

MattDavis

MattDavis

Well-known member
When it comes to aspect ratios beyond 16:9, I am a complete numpty, and I'm confused by the information I get from the web (gosh, now there's a first) and what I'm seeing in my little C100.

AFAIK, 2.35:1 was an older aspect ratio that died out in the 70s and most cine work is now presented at 2.39:1 but the C100's aspect guides refer to 2.35:1 and (quick poll around a few friends) it seems there's a bit of ambivalence about it. Has 2.35:1 just become a 'label' or moniker to mean 'widey-thin cine-stylee'?
 
what drives me crazy is that the so called cinema cameras don't offer the possibility to display anamorphic images correctly. It's nice to have guides for the so called cinemascope mode but where is the possibilty to squeeze the image?
 
dvxkoji said:
what drives me crazy is that the so called cinema cameras don't offer the possibility to display anamorphic images correctly. It's nice to have guides for the so called cinemascope mode but where is the possibilty to squeeze the image?
Click to expand...

I'm the opposite. It's a digital camera; what's the need for anamorphic in the digital age? I understood it with film, but not digital.

To me a square pixel is a good pixel. So 4096 by whatever to get the ratio you want. For that matter, why get stuck on 2:3x : 1? With digital you can use whatever ratio you want. I personally like 2.24 : 1. IOW, sqrt(5) :1, which is tied to the golden ratio and is a fundamentally beautiful aspect ratio. Used all around the world for the most beautiful buildings and gardens. Closest thing from the film days was the ToddAO format, which is 2.2 : 1 and was used for such films as 2001 A Space Odyssey.

I'm just sayin' to use the ratio that works for you, and you don't need a specific ratio out of film history to do it.

And no, I have no idea what the C100 is showing you. Sorry.
 
dvxkoji said:
what drives me crazy is that the so called cinema cameras don't offer the possibility to display anamorphic images correctly. It's nice to have guides for the so called cinemascope mode but where is the possibilty to squeeze the image?
Click to expand...

I guess that's where the external monitors and EVFs come in.
 
The difference between 2.35:1 and 2.39:1, on a 1080p image, is 14 pixels. I don't know the answer to the original question (whether the C100's displaying 2.35 or 2.39) but I doubt you'd even be able to see the difference on its viewfinder.
 
Andrius, true. I own a Zacuto EVF but and I can squeeze my display according my anamorphic glas but sometimes I just would love to pop on my Iscorama, without building the whole rig around it and take things from there.
I'd just love it if a feature for anamorphic display would have been down in the menus somewhere but there is just the 2.35 crop lines - which have actually not a lot to do with anamorphic cinemascope.
 
Thanks Barry - I should have picked up a pocket calculator! :)

So 2.35:1 is just a label, and a nicer looking number than 2.39:1 - I think we can rest easy now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top