This is embarrasing ... 2.35:1 Question

Norm Sanders

Norm Sanders

Script Wrangler
I'm sorry to ask this, as I know it's been talked about to death, but I'm not finding the answer. I thought someone said Disjecta did an indepth post on it, but can't find that either ... besides, he's on Premier, and I'm thinking it may be different in Vegas.

I THOUGHT I had the answer in this post when I wrote a book on my discovery (http://www.dvxuser.com/V3/showthread.php?t=28724&highlight=2.35%3A1), but after looking, the aspect ratio I found is actually listed for PAL widescreen.

I've also played with the crops that were listed in that same post, as well as patrickj's site (http://www.twodogfilms.com/crops.html), but they don't answer my Q. So here it is:

In the Project Properties in Vegas 6, what's the Pixel Aspect Ratio that should be put in for a 2.35:1 widescreen ratio. For 16x9 widescreen ratio (the only widescreen for NTSC that's offered) the ratio is 1.2121. I could guess, but I want to be exact, if possible & reasonable.

Then, for MPEG2 rendering, HOW can I change the drop down box to anything other than what it offers (i.e. to 2.35:1 instead of the current 2.21:1)?

Could we make the answers for these aspect ratios, or how to get them exactly, a sticky? Seems to get brought up a lot, and I'm sorry to be the one to do it again.
 
Well first of all, how did you achieve 2.35:1 ? By shooting anamorphic 16:9 plus letterboxes?
Or perhaps by shooting 4:3 and cutting down to 2.35:1? For anamorphic footage your pixel ratio is always 1.21 for a 4:3 image your pixels should be .9
You do not need to alter pixel aspect ratio upon rendering mpeg2... You either shot 4:3 or 16:9 regardless of letterboxes or not...
 
Meaning I want to edit in a 2.35:1 project, then render it out to the same ratio. I'm shooting 4:3, but want to import it into a 2.35:1 project just as I do a 16:9.

If I bring a 4:3 project into a 16:9, I have to select pan/crop, then match aspect ratio. Otherwise, when I render out the 16:9 project it'll have a pillar box (bars on sides).

From my experience in messing around, you can make the aspect ratio anything you want regardless of what you shoot. I'm just looking for true wide screen vs. using a matt to appear to crop it.
 
Meaning I want to edit in a 2.35:1 project, then render it out to the same ratio. I'm shooting 4:3, but want to import it into a 2.35:1 project just as I do a 16:9.

Your 4:3 frame can not be any wider than what it is (1.33:1) by adjusting pixel aspect ratio you are only stretching .9 to something unnaturally wide...

From my experience in messing around, you can make the aspect ratio anything you want regardless of what you shoot.

Yes but your pixel aspect ratio stays the same. (that is if you want a proper-looking image) I can shoot 4:3 and crop it to 2.76:1 that is now my aspect ratio. My pixel size stays exact same. If i want to get rid of my letterboxes then i will export out a project of different dimensions...

I am pretty out of it right now and can be very wrong but whatever it is you do i hope it works out.
 
DING, DING, DING, DING! I think you just made a light go off in my head. So are you telling me that when I import my 4:3 footage into a 16:9 project, and click "match aspect ratio" in the pan/crop window, that I'm actually STRETCHING my 4:3, and not just cropping it?

How's that so, since when I go to render a MPEG2, the dimensions are 720x480 for BOTH 4:3 AND 16:9? Even if I click in the drop down box and were to choose the 2.21:1 ratio, the window/frame dimenions are still 720x480. I guess what I'm really looking for is what's the correct pixel ratio to work with that 2.21:1 drop down option (closest thing it has for 2.35:1 ... at least as a drop down option)?
 
Okay, I'll buy that. Is there a particular shade of black that should be used? I ask because I've used pure black matts before, and you can tell the difference between when there's a black matt vs. nothing there except screen ... if that makes sense.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but that'll still require a second step, right? Render out to my 16:9 frame (assuming/hoping I'm not STRETCHING my 4:3, but only cropping it instead) to a AVI file (Quicktime for Mac's I guess) then bring it back into another 16:9 project with a mask to crop to the 2.35:1 ... otherwise, if I try it in just the one step, my mask would be CC'd, flash with transitions, etc. Yes?

Thisiswells, blows my mind a FCP guy surfs the Vegas forum. Love the input, and assume you just look for people to help if it's something you can answer. Thanks! You surf all the other NLE's as well?
 
ok check it out. 2:35:1 can only be achieved and look right if u do 1 of 2 things
A: SHOOT w/ anamorphic + letterbox
or
B: SHOOT w/ anamorphic + Squeeze mode.

if you shoot with 4:3 you have th ability to mask off the top and bottom to the size of 2:35:1 however It will just look like someone threw black bars on the top and bottom because the wide angle doesnt exsist. In other words u must use the anamorphic.

when SHOOTing w/ anamorphic + Squeeze mode. I bring my files into vegas and convert the squished footage to 1.6121 this makes the file 2:35:1 and brings the squished pictures into the right aspect.

Hope this helps u;)

-Matt
 
How do you convert the footage? Set the project property's pixel aspect ratio to 1.6121, then pan/crop your clip(s) and select match output aspect?

I understand an anamorphic lense will capture more on the sides than 4:3, but isn't that kind of relative to the viewer? Meaning, if you're shooting a canyon at wide open zoom, or inside from the other side of a room, how does the audience really know "Hey, he shot that with an anamorphic"? I don't have an anamorphic, but maybe I could use squeeze on my wide angle Century Optics lense? It's 30 or 40% more in the frame, but you can see SOME curviture to the walls, etc. Nah, scrap those last two sentences.

Avatuar, how'd you come up with the 1.6121 pixel aspect ratio for 2.35:1? Do you know how to come up with the correct aspect ratio for 2.21:1, the option Vegas offers for rendering to MPEG2? BTW, that's almost the exact same as the 20:9 that thisiswells mentioned for DVD's (2.22:1)
 
Envision said:
I understand an anamorphic lense will capture more on the sides than 4:3, but isn't that kind of relative to the viewer? Meaning, if you're shooting a canyon at wide open zoom, or inside from the other side of a room, how does the audience really know "Hey, he shot that with an anamorphic"?
Click to expand...

Anamorphic just means there is more stuff squished into less space...by fiddling with the pixel aspect ratio (in our case, with video).

Upon viewing, it is unsquished so it comes out in it's actual width.

Setting up a 4:3 project and putting in the letterbox bars means the image isn't fiddled with.

Setting up a 16:9 or 2.35:1 or whatever project, the image gets fiddled with and the DVD player (or whatever) re-fiddles to put it back the way it should be...adding bars when necessary.

So why anamorphic or squeeze? A letterboxed 4:3 gets blown up both vertically and horizontally when shown...a nice even loss of resolution.

An anamorphic gets blown up vertically when shown...but the horizontal just gets shown the way it was to begin with (minus any res lost due to information loss in the squishing process).

Sort of.

Or I could be talking past the monkey flying out my...

Dan
 
thisiswells said:
I simply don't know what I'm talking about anymore. This article talks about a 20:9 standard built into the DVD systems that will actually enable anamorphic recordings, and it makes my head hurt.

http://gregl.net/videophile/anamorphic.htm
Click to expand...

Thanks for that link. Must have been written at least 3+ years ago, as it references DVD-HD possibly coming out as early as 2003. The author also stated they didn't think 20:9 anamorphic would take hold with DVD's, as some players may not recognize it ... however, Sony's offered that option in their MPEG2 since at least version 5, if not 4. Just need to know the right stinkin' pixel aspect ratio to set in the project properties ... if it's not making the 4:3 look like stretched crap onscreen.
 
It is not necassary to use the adaptor to get 2.35:1. I do it all the time. Just with less resolution. if you shot in 4:3, then you need to CROP your video. If you just resize it, it will be distorted. As far as I know, it is not possible to crop an entire project. Or even an entire track. Is that right? The way i have done it is just to crop each video event down to 2.35:1. The number your looking for you can get by just dividing. 2.35:1 means the width is equal to the height multiplied by 2.35. Since we're stuck with a width of 720, the height is 720 divided by 2.35, which is between 306 and 307.
 
Thanks for all of your help & advice, but I'm simply looking for the correct pixel aspect ratio to put into the project properties. If you look, there's a pixal aspect ratio for the standard 4:3 projects, then there's ANOTHER for 16:9 projects. What I need to know is what's the pixel aspect ratio I can choose or type in from scratch to match the 2.21:1 ratio option I have in the MPEG2 drop down menu?

By setting the pixel aspect ratio in the project properties, I then only have to go to pan/crop on each clip & click match output aspect ratio. The project will also be properly set for the 2.21:1 ratio in MPEG2.

As it is now, even if I take a 16:9 project, with footage shot in squeeze, if I try & render it out in the 2.21:1 option in the MPEG2 render, I get a pillar box (black bars on the side). I know it's not a matter of needing "wider" footage to work with, it's a matter of having the project properties set to the correct pixal aspect ratio.

In a nut shell, what's the formula to come up with that exact pixal aspect ratio for a 2.21:1 project (I know I listed this as 2.35:1, but MPEG2 only renders out to NTSC (with black bars) for 16:9 or 2.21:1.
 
No, you know, like 4:3 has a pixel aspect ratio of 0.9 something, and 16:9 has an aspect ratio of 1. something, etc. On the first page, I think it was Avataur gave the pixal aspect ratio for 2.35:1 ... trying to get the exact one for 2.21:1, and even more importantly, know what the formula is to get it (so I can be a little more self dependant in the future & hopefully help others w/the same Q.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top