Squeezed mode + wide angle lens
- Thread starter Johan
- Start date
Re: Squeezed mode + wide angle lens
the squeezed mode only uses the letterbox area of the dvx, and therefore has hte same angle of view as letterbox mode, or regular mode for that matter. so really your asking if a wide angle lense is wider than the anamorphic.. the answer depends entirely on how wide your wide angle lense is , but really if you ga any wider than the anamorphic , your going to get alot of barrel distortion up to even z20 or so. sides, the anamorphic actually widens your feild of view by only seeing wider horizontally. so your image stays the same height, but is physically wider it changes the image aspect ration since its wider than it was before from standard 4:3 to 16:9. a wide angle lense widens the image in all directions, so your image height also expands as the width expands, so your image stays the same dimensions, only you can see more.. the same as if you just backed up with your regular lense so that you could see more. the image dimensions are still 4:3 . if you in sqeeze mode , or letterbox your viewable image is 16:9..just a wider view.. if you used the ana lense on top of the squeeze or letterbox, your image would be a rough 2.35:1 or cinescope.
the squeezed mode only uses the letterbox area of the dvx, and therefore has hte same angle of view as letterbox mode, or regular mode for that matter. so really your asking if a wide angle lense is wider than the anamorphic.. the answer depends entirely on how wide your wide angle lense is , but really if you ga any wider than the anamorphic , your going to get alot of barrel distortion up to even z20 or so. sides, the anamorphic actually widens your feild of view by only seeing wider horizontally. so your image stays the same height, but is physically wider it changes the image aspect ration since its wider than it was before from standard 4:3 to 16:9. a wide angle lense widens the image in all directions, so your image height also expands as the width expands, so your image stays the same dimensions, only you can see more.. the same as if you just backed up with your regular lense so that you could see more. the image dimensions are still 4:3 . if you in sqeeze mode , or letterbox your viewable image is 16:9..just a wider view.. if you used the ana lense on top of the squeeze or letterbox, your image would be a rough 2.35:1 or cinescope.
Mike_Donis
Veteran
Re: Squeezed mode + wide angle lens
Would you be referring to 2.39:1, 1.85:1, 16x9, and the like?
If so, heres a quick rundown:
16x9 (or 1.78:1) is the aspect ratio of HDTV, and of widescreen TVs. It is VERY close to 1.85:1, which is the standard in motion picture films while shooting spherically.
2.39:1 (sometimes referred to as 2.35:1 or 2.40:1, or simply cinemascope or scope) is the 'wider' ratio commonly seen, and normally this is for theatrically released films. These films are sometimes shot spherically and then cropped, or have been shot with an anamorphic lens on the 35mm camera.
Asking which ratio is the most accepted is entirely depending on your audience. I bet most cinematographers would say scope is the best, mainly beacuse it can give the most dynamic compositions. The average viewer, though, would probably NOT like scope, because of the "thick black bars".
16x9 (or 1.85 even, most people can't tell the difference) is the less wide ratio, and is most likely what you'd want to shoot in if you're trying to make the average jow happy. It gives you the ability to have your wider screen, but has more of the 4:3 space taken up by picture information, and therefore your 'average joe' would probably like this more.
But as I've said, I like cinemascope myself, and I bet most 'film buffs' would agree. It's so much prettier...
Would you be referring to 2.39:1, 1.85:1, 16x9, and the like?
If so, heres a quick rundown:
16x9 (or 1.78:1) is the aspect ratio of HDTV, and of widescreen TVs. It is VERY close to 1.85:1, which is the standard in motion picture films while shooting spherically.
2.39:1 (sometimes referred to as 2.35:1 or 2.40:1, or simply cinemascope or scope) is the 'wider' ratio commonly seen, and normally this is for theatrically released films. These films are sometimes shot spherically and then cropped, or have been shot with an anamorphic lens on the 35mm camera.
Asking which ratio is the most accepted is entirely depending on your audience. I bet most cinematographers would say scope is the best, mainly beacuse it can give the most dynamic compositions. The average viewer, though, would probably NOT like scope, because of the "thick black bars".
16x9 (or 1.85 even, most people can't tell the difference) is the less wide ratio, and is most likely what you'd want to shoot in if you're trying to make the average jow happy. It gives you the ability to have your wider screen, but has more of the 4:3 space taken up by picture information, and therefore your 'average joe' would probably like this more.
But as I've said, I like cinemascope myself, and I bet most 'film buffs' would agree. It's so much prettier...
Re: Squeezed mode + wide angle lens
i agree..i would say that 16:9 is the most accepted, because it leaves the least amount of the acreen as black area, and offers a larger picture. once you get up to cinescope 2.35(2.39):1 youve got only roughly about 1/3 of the screen being used in a line accross the center, and that starts to bother some people. but the issue isnt which type of widescreen display you should use to go to 4:3. you just letterbox whatever type of widescreen footage you have, if its 16:9 then you have a 16:9 letterbox, and if its cinescope, then youve got a cinescope letterbox. the reason for letterboxing is to preserve the full viewable image of a a widescreen production, that wouldnt be able to be displayed on a 4:3 tvc cause its not wide enough...so you shrink the whole thing down til the width fits, and your left with black on the top and bottom. if your just masking your 4:3 video for a widescreen look, then just choose which ratio suits your production the best.
i agree..i would say that 16:9 is the most accepted, because it leaves the least amount of the acreen as black area, and offers a larger picture. once you get up to cinescope 2.35(2.39):1 youve got only roughly about 1/3 of the screen being used in a line accross the center, and that starts to bother some people. but the issue isnt which type of widescreen display you should use to go to 4:3. you just letterbox whatever type of widescreen footage you have, if its 16:9 then you have a 16:9 letterbox, and if its cinescope, then youve got a cinescope letterbox. the reason for letterboxing is to preserve the full viewable image of a a widescreen production, that wouldnt be able to be displayed on a 4:3 tvc cause its not wide enough...so you shrink the whole thing down til the width fits, and your left with black on the top and bottom. if your just masking your 4:3 video for a widescreen look, then just choose which ratio suits your production the best.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Re: Squeezed mode + wide angle lens
As David Mullen says, 2.39 is great in the theater because it actually makes the picture WIDER, but on TV it's less desirable because all it does is make the picture SHORTER.
As David Mullen says, 2.39 is great in the theater because it actually makes the picture WIDER, but on TV it's less desirable because all it does is make the picture SHORTER.
Mike_Donis
Veteran
Re: Squeezed mode + wide angle lens
But, to be fair, I know that I personally (and I know a lot of people are with me on this) 2.39 letterboxing has a certain look attributed to it. If you're trying to please people in regards to "the least amount of bars possible", then sure, 2.39 sucks...but it does add a certain "professional" feeling to your footage, especially if it's well lit and in 24P.
But, to be fair, I know that I personally (and I know a lot of people are with me on this) 2.39 letterboxing has a certain look attributed to it. If you're trying to please people in regards to "the least amount of bars possible", then sure, 2.39 sucks...but it does add a certain "professional" feeling to your footage, especially if it's well lit and in 24P.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Re: Squeezed mode + wide angle lens
Hey, it's a great aspect ratio, some of the best films of all time were shot in it.
I'm just saying that it is implemented very differently in video than it is in film. In film, it makes everything grander and actually gives you more. In video, you're not gaining anything, you're in fact losing something like 56% of your frame and making your picture smaller.
But, hey, if you like that widescreen shape, it's the only way you can get it...
Hey, it's a great aspect ratio, some of the best films of all time were shot in it.
I'm just saying that it is implemented very differently in video than it is in film. In film, it makes everything grander and actually gives you more. In video, you're not gaining anything, you're in fact losing something like 56% of your frame and making your picture smaller.
But, hey, if you like that widescreen shape, it's the only way you can get it...