Xl2 Shooting 2.35 help

xenocide4114 · February 4, 2005

In a few weeks i am shooting a short on an xl2. I am intirested in getting anamorphic lenses for the shoot for a 2.35 aspect ratio. the project will not be printed to film. I am a little inexpirienced with editting. but if anyone knows, does the image have to be unsqueezed (or is it possible) in editting programs such as avid, final cutt pro. ect...... Any help would be great!!!!

p.s. i already know what attatchments i require to put on the camera to use the lenses.

dan

drew_town · February 4, 2005

In FCP and After Effects you have the option to apply a widescreen filter that mattes off the top and bottom of the frame. The filter is variable giving you some of the common aspect ratios (one of those being 2.35). If you're shooting 2.35 I would suggest to shoot in a standard 4x3 aspect ratio with your 16x9 gridlines inabled on your XL2 and matte off the top and bottom. You just have to remember when you're shooting that you'll be losing the top and bottom portion of the image. Don't worry if you get a little off here and there. You have the option to slide the matted image up or down in FCP to create more headroom or remove it. This is often done in films with wide aspect ratios such as the movie Seven. You can, however, shoot anamorphic which FCP can unsqeeze but you're still going to have to matte some of the image to get your 2.35 ratio because it'll be at 1.78 (I think). And you're lens attachment won't change you're aspect ratio. It'll just put more info in your shot. Good luck.

Rik Andino · February 10, 2005

Why are you shooting anamorphic if you're not going to film?

Are you planning on a theatrical release?

Or heading towards a DVD/Video release?

Anamorphic is a lot of matting & letterboxing for an image that'll be on TV...

Just think about...

Do regular folks really want to see that much black space on their TVs?

Guy Meachin · February 13, 2005

With the Anamorphic (or is it the wide-angle) setting on the XL1s, I believe some of the chip is cut off and not used making the final image quality not as good since it isn't a proper setting! Does any of that make sense? Is this the same with the XL2?

On a shoot yesterday and my XL1s blew over in strong winds, and just to make matters worse into a large puddle! The eye piece is battered and the tripod mount on the bottom sheared off! Ooooops! So I'm hoping my insurance company won't know the difference between the XL1s and the XL2 - though I suspect they might notice the £1000 difference!

Austin Schmidt · February 13, 2005

I did some tests a little while ago using Elite anamorphic lenses with the ps teknic and the DVX100A but this will apply to the XL2 as well. The thing to do is shoot the image in the regular 4:3 setting to have access to its full resolution (The downfall being you won't be able to view the image normally while recording unless a transvideo monitor tap is used to "desqueeze" the image to your external monitors). After you're done shooting, most people assume that the image can then be "unsqueezed" in home programs such as FCP, however this is not true. The home programs do "unsqueeze" images but only images captured in widescreen 16x9. If you use this option after shooting true 1:2.35 then your image will be "desqueezed" only partially. The only way to do this fully is to transfer your footage at a post house and have them do the "unsqueezing". The benefit to all this is that you will have retained the full DV resolution from the original. Definately shoot tests, because after all the pushing and pulling of the image, I couldn't guarentee you a quality image. Remember, this is not an optical process any more like film, rather a bunch computer pieces trying to recreate what film accomplished decades ago.