New Hack and 2x anamorphic questions.... 1920x1440 ... 960 x 405 ...possible?

How is this qualitatively different, then shooting 1080p with a 2x Anamorphic, then cropping the 3840x1080 to 2538x1080 for 1:2.35? Don't we still end up with the same number of image pixels?
 
The idea of anamorphic is to get the best widescreen resolution

The idea of anamorphic is to get the best widescreen resolution

Hey, we're all a bit confused here about what we want! If you want 2.35:1 for viewing on your TV, just shoot 1080P and crop!

This "Native anamorphic" concept is a new one to me. It makes me wonder why we'd spent all this money and effort on glass when all the time we could have just thrown away some of that our horizontal resolution!

My client has a 7-metre (wide) screen. And no, his audiences don't want their pixels 3.65 mm wide x 4.14 mm high!

Here's what I pasted into this "reply to thread" editor from a calc spreadsheet. I'll put the spreadsheet into a Google Doc if anybody wants.

But yes, a 1920 x 1440 MJPEG file would be nice!
Really, though, anamorphic 2 X shooters will eventually want the biggest 4:3 image the sensor will produce.

[SUB]16:9 acquisition, 16:19 projection Projected onto 1.92 x 1.08 metre screen Each pixel Pixels per mm
Pixel count width 1920 1920 mm 1 mm 1.00 Horiz
Pixel count height 1080 1080 mm 1 mm 1.00 Vert

Anamorphic 16:9 acquisition, 2.35:1 projection STRETCHED-Projected onto screen 2.553 x 1.08 metre screen STRETCHED- Projected onto screen 7 Metre wide screen
Squeeze factor: Pixel count width 1920 2553.6 mm 1.33 mm 0.75 Horiz 3.65 mm
1.33 Pixel count height 1080 1080 mm 1 mm 1.00 Vert 2.76 mm


1920 x 720 Anamorphic 4:3 acquisition, 2.35:1 projection STRETCHED-Projected onto screen 2.553 x 1.08 metre screen STRETCHED- Projected onto screen 7 Metre wide screen
Squeeze factor: Pixel count width 1920 3840 mm 2 mm 0.50 Horiz 3.65 mm
2 Pixel count height 720 720 mm 1 mm 1.00 Vert 4.14 mm

1436 x 1080 Anamorphic 4:3 acquisition, 2.35:1 projection STRETCHED-Projected onto screen 2.553 x 1.08 metre screen STRETCHED- Projected onto screen 7 Metre wide screen
Squeeze factor: Pixel count width 1436 2872 mm 2 mm 0.50 Horiz 4.87 mm
2 Pixel count height 1080 1080 mm 1 mm 1.00 Vert 2.76 mm


1920 x 1440 Anamorphic 4:3 acquisition, 2.35:1 projection STRETCHED-Projected onto screen 2.553 x 1.08 metre screen STRETCHED- Projected onto screen 7 Metre wide screen
Squeeze factor: Pixel count width 1920 3840 mm 2 mm 0.50 Horiz 3.65 mm
2 Pixel count height 1440 1440 mm 1 mm 1.00 Vert 2.07 mm


[/SUB]
 
Hey, we're all a bit confused here about what we want! If you want 2.35:1 for viewing on your TV, just shoot 1080P and crop!
Click to expand...

If someone already answered this please forgive me.

It's because there is more to anamorphic than the "crop" factor. Flares (horizontal and wicked for sure.) Irregular bokeh. (Elliptical and unique). Color modification (depending on the lens)....to name a few. I'm NOT saying that it's for everyone, but those are some things that some of us love about the look.

Cheers!
 
And I'm saying, IMHO, that this patch is only a toy. Cinematographers shouldn't be lured into fiddling around with all that glass for such meagre results, ignoring all their resolution!
Do the maths. It's the equivalent of 2-perf in film. 2-perf looks better now with the newer fine-grain Kodak Vision films. But video is limited by its pixels.
 
Last edited:
lpowell said:
the vertical resolution of cinemascope Blu-ray is only about 810 pixels.
Click to expand...
1440×1080 29.97-i 16:9 (anamorphic)
1440×1080 25-i 16:9 (anamorphic)
1440×1080 24-p 16:9 (anamorphic)
1440×1080 23.976-p 16:9 (anamorphic)

There's more to moviemaking than a letterboxed widescreen TV!
The Blu-Ray spec allows for widescreen: via projection or widescreen TV.
If not, my client's building the wrong theatre.

What's more, Blu-ray is not the only destination format. For theatrical distribution, Blu-ray isn't the only show in town. Somewhere out there there's a kid with a GH.x and the talent to shoot a feature film and edit it on his mother's kitchen table.

Now, for learning, that 720p patch would be a valuable thing. I shot heaps of anamorphic before I got any results I was satisfied with. A quicker preview would have helped shorten the learning curve.
 
Roberto Hapsad said:
1440×1080 29.97-i 16:9 (anamorphic)
1440×1080 25-i 16:9 (anamorphic)
1440×1080 24-p 16:9 (anamorphic)
1440×1080 23.976-p 16:9 (anamorphic)

There's more to moviemaking than a letterboxed widescreen TV!
The Blu-Ray spec allows for widescreen: via projection or widescreen TV.
Click to expand...

The anamorphic aspect ratios listed above were included in the Blu-ray specifications to support legacy camcorder formats that were not quite capable of Full-HD 1920x1080 resolution. When played back, the Blu-ray player automatically stretches the 1440x1080 frame out to the standard 1920x1080 HDTV 16:9 aspect ratio.

Sadly enough, the Blu-ray consortium made no provision for encoding movies with a widescreen 2.35:1 aspect ratio into an anamorphic 1920x1080 frame. Had they done so, it would have been possible to create Blu-ray cinemascope movies with an effective resolution of 2560x1080 pixels (using an anamorphic lens on a 1080p projector). In practice, all 2.35:1 widescreen movies must be scaled down to a letterboxed, non-anamorphic 1920x810 frame size in order to be encoded into Blu-ray format.

For theatrical distribution, most independent films are currently rendered at 2K resolution: 2048×1080. This is only slightly wider than FHD 1920x1080 resolution. However, modern digital intermediates are usually produced at 3K or 4K resolution for post-production, and scaled down to 2K only at the final rendering stage. The 8-bit 4:2:0 color depth and low bitrate of the GH1's FHD video files would not be considered high enough quality source footage for theatrical distribution.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top