Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Square Aspect Equivalent
- Thread starter mgalvan
- Start date
discs of tron
Well-known member
approx 16x6.81, which isn't what you'd use. the lowest common demoninator would be 47:20. not sure if "lowest common denominator" is the right term here. you get the idea though. the only way to express it in whole numbers would be 47:20. probably better to stick with "2.35" are you trying to crop 16:9 down to 'scope?
16:9
..its just a width to height ratio representation of lowest common denominator of the number of units wide by the number of units tall. the image is 16 units wide for every 9 units tall. 16:9 images happen to have a nice low common denominator.
2.35:1 uses a decimal value because otherwise it would have to be 235:100 to properly reperesent the image width to height ratio
its not 16 by anything.. the image is 235 units wide for every 100 units tall ..you could use a lower common denominator to divide bby 5 to give you 47:20 but thats stupid and rediculous looking.. so they went for 2.35:1 its a nice and small ratio
hope that helps
dang.. i gues i shouldnt eat and type at the same time.. makes me slow as molasses. 2 of the same posts before me.. lol
..its just a width to height ratio representation of lowest common denominator of the number of units wide by the number of units tall. the image is 16 units wide for every 9 units tall. 16:9 images happen to have a nice low common denominator.
2.35:1 uses a decimal value because otherwise it would have to be 235:100 to properly reperesent the image width to height ratio
its not 16 by anything.. the image is 235 units wide for every 100 units tall ..you could use a lower common denominator to divide bby 5 to give you 47:20 but thats stupid and rediculous looking.. so they went for 2.35:1 its a nice and small ratio
hope that helps
dang.. i gues i shouldnt eat and type at the same time.. makes me slow as molasses. 2 of the same posts before me.. lol
lol ... thanks for the responses ...
The reason I ask specifically for DVCProHD is something came to my head yesterday as I was at DVExpo East. I was sitting through Jan's presentation on the HVX200 (which I'll definitely be preordering) and someone was talking about the advantages of 1080p over 720p. Now although 1080p gives us a higher resolution, 720p gives us variable framerates. This is something I am battling over in terms of future films productions with the camera ... shoot with 1080p or 720p? So then I started thinking about how to acheive 2.35:1 with the camera (which is my favorite aspect ratio) and something hit me. If I was going to shoot 1080p and then crop in post to 2.35:1, I would obviously be cutting down my effective vertical resolution. But what I want to know is that would it then bring my footage's vertical resolution close to the vertical resolution of 720p footage in 16x9? I'm just thinking of ways to deal with mixing footage if shot with both resolutions. Thanks again.
The reason I ask specifically for DVCProHD is something came to my head yesterday as I was at DVExpo East. I was sitting through Jan's presentation on the HVX200 (which I'll definitely be preordering) and someone was talking about the advantages of 1080p over 720p. Now although 1080p gives us a higher resolution, 720p gives us variable framerates. This is something I am battling over in terms of future films productions with the camera ... shoot with 1080p or 720p? So then I started thinking about how to acheive 2.35:1 with the camera (which is my favorite aspect ratio) and something hit me. If I was going to shoot 1080p and then crop in post to 2.35:1, I would obviously be cutting down my effective vertical resolution. But what I want to know is that would it then bring my footage's vertical resolution close to the vertical resolution of 720p footage in 16x9? I'm just thinking of ways to deal with mixing footage if shot with both resolutions. Thanks again.
sure your vert res might be closer to that of 720p (which is always 16:9 since it is HD), but keep in mind youd have to crop that 720 frame to 2.35:1 as well. so your not really closing the gap at all. i think if you really needed some variable frame rates for the film such as slow mo i would shoot in 720 60p and then uprez it and drop it in a 1080 24p timeline and i dont think youd have a real distinctly negative resolution issue there at all. id probably just use the 720p and uprez for any variable framterate i needed.
photozoom pro does an awsome job if you can do all the work of batch processing and such . but i would assume the varied frame rate sections would be few and far between so its certainly an option. otherwise you could use your NLE or AE or whatever. since your NLE wil have to be HD compatable and wil most likely have scaling built in for a resolution independent timline. it would probably work fine for most stuff. but youd have to check and see and judge the quality by your own eyes testing the programs you have available at the time. all time and extra work consideration aside though id currently sit with photozoom pro.
i would scale first and then colorize.. put the pixels in their place and then play with them. but i dont see any real issue from doing it the other way... i just wouldnt want to mess with my effects or colorization after it was just right by scaling it.. id rather know that what im looking at right then and there is what it will be without changing at all.