Jump to content

2.39:1 @ full resolution w/ XL2


Landon D. Parks

Recommended Posts

Ok, lets say you wanted to get a full resolution 2.39:1 aspect from the XL2. What would be the best way to do it?

 

I always though you could shoot it in 4:3 mode w/ a Mini35 adapter and an Anamorphic 35mm lense. This would not only allow you to get the Anamorphic ratio, but the more shallow dept of field of the mini35 adapter.

 

However im sure there are other way, would people care to explain in detail different was of going about it?

 

I noticed on here some questions similare to mine, but not my exact question. Please forgive me if this hs already been asked and asnwered. :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Hi,

 

> I always though you could shoot it in 4:3 mode w/ a Mini35 adapter and an

> Anamorphic 35mm lense.

 

"Lens."

 

Yes, you could do that. Bit pricey, and you'll end up cropping off the edge of the image. Why? Well, the 4:3 image (or 1.33:1) gets doubled in width, so you get 2.66. Usually a 35mm scope picture area is more like 1.2:1, so doubling it gets you 2.4.

 

> However im sure there are other way,

 

You can put it into 16:9 mode and then put a 16:9 optical adapter on it. This squashes it once on the CCD and again on the lens. 16:9 is 1.78:1; that's about one and a half times 1.33, so the adapter gets you about a 1.5x compression. One and a half times 1.78 is again just over 2.6.

 

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, either way I'm gonna be cropping off the sides then? I dont know if this will change anything or not, but you stated using an in camera squeez + another optical squeez. But the XL2 has a native 1.78:1 chip, not 1.33:1 (From what I hear). So you would only need to apply 1 squeez to it?

 

Im not sure if that makes since or not, but bear with me here.

 

And I don;t know if this figure makes since or not, but:

1.78 x 1.33 = 2.36:1 or so.... that in the area of 2.35-2.40:1.

 

Another thing, what anamorphic adapter should I use? I hear there is a new 1.33x adapter out now, that suppose to be when used on a 16:9 native camera gives a 2.39:1 ratio.

 

you certainly dont use the same adapter you would to get a 4:3 image to 16:9? If im right that would be like applying 1.78x1.78, which is 3.56:1 (WOW!)

Edited by Landon D. Parks
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

All the anamorphic attachments for DV cameras have a 1.33X squeeze, so they will squeeze a 16x9 image onto a 4x3 CCD and they will squeeze a 2.35 image onto 16x9.

 

There is a Canon rear-mount extension tube for B4 video lenses to squeeze a 2.35 image onto a 16x9 2/3" CCD.

 

Just remember that 2.35 is not a video recording format nor a display format, so at some point, you will have to make a conversion to a 2.35 letterboxed image on the two display formats for video: 16x9 or 4x3.

 

All this means that there's no point in using the whole 16x9 CCD for 2.35 by adding a 1.33X optical squeeze IF you aren't planning on a transfer to film anyway, since all you end up doing is converting it to a letterboxed image for video display. You might as well just shoot 16x9 and frame it for letterboxing to 2.35.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im sorry David, but I dont 100% follow. Even though 2.39:1 is not a video formate, it can still be shown. A lot fo movies are shown @ 2.39:1, even on TV.

 

What I would like is to have the DVD version in full resolution 2.39:1. If I'm thinking right that tape records @ 1.33:1 no matter what. It just stretches the image. But in post, could'nt you unstretch the 1.33:1 image to 2.39:1 thenletter box that? That way you have a 2.39:1 master at the end and forget any kind of 4:3 or 16:9?

 

Basicly, keep a 2.39:1 full resolution image from camera to DVD? Is that possible?

 

Im refering to, lets say you shot 35mm film in anamorphic. You Scanned it anamorphic. How do they get the 2.39:1 image onto Widescreen DVD's without "This film has been formated to fit your TV." deal. Would'nt it be the same way with video being shoot at 2.39:1?

 

Or am I way out of my mind here?

Edited by Landon D. Parks
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

>Basicly, keep a 2.39:1 full resolution image from camera to DVD? Is that possible?

 

No, there are only two standard def video recording and display formats, 4x3 and 16x9. 16x9 uses non-square pixels to fit a widescreen image onto 720 x 480 (NTSC) or 720 x 560 (PAL). 4x3 uses nearly square pixels in comparison.

 

Any other aspect ratios that 1.33 or 1.78 require the use of black borders in the recording if you want them displayed probably on a monitor. A DVD player has the ability to convert a 16x9 full-frame recording to be displayed on a 4x3 monitor with a 1.78 letterbox.

 

If you shoot a movie in 2.35 anamorphic 35mm and transfer it to standard def video, you transfer it either to 16x9 or 4x3 video with letterboxing to retain the 2.35 aspect ratio. Now if you use a 16x9 recording format, then you'd be using smaller amounts of black borders to create a 2.35 image onto a 1.78 frame, compared to the size of the black borders to letterbox 2.35 into a 4x3 frame. And a DVD player would then convert this "16x9 with a 2.35 letterbox" to 4x3 with a 2.35 letterbox if you were going to a 4x3 monitor.

 

While you could squeeze a 2.35 image to fill a 16x9 recording, it would appear incorrectly squeezed and full-frame on a 16x9 monitor, not letterboxed to 2.35.

 

The only time you have a 2.35 image stretched to fill 16x9 is when doing a transfer to HD for projection using DLP-Cinema projectors, which have alternative anamorphic projector lenses to properly unsqueeze the image. The Viper in 2.35 mode will also stretch a 2.35 image to fill a 16x9 HD recording as a way of maximizing pixels for a transfer to film. However, for home video use, you'd make a conversion of this recording to 16x9 HD with a 2.35 letterbox, from which you can make letterboxed 4x3 and 16x9 standard def submaster for duplication.

 

This is why I'm saying that there's no advantage to shooting a 2.35 image stretched to fill 16x9 standard def video IF the only purpose was standard def video presentation, because you'd just end up converting it first to a 16x9 with a 2.35 letterboxed version. Now there might be an advantage in shooting this way if you were going to upconvert it to 16x9 HD with a 2.35 letterbox, since you'd be using more lines of standard def video for the actual 2.35 image, plus there would be some advantage for a transfer to film. But for DVD release, there is no advantage over simply letterboxing a straight 16x9 recording to 2.35.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi;

 

A correction, the adapter for the DVX100 is 72mm so this could be used for the XL2! David's post also got me thinking of a possible way to exploit the larger image area obtained by this method on a 16/9 TV, how about importing the project into FCP as 16/9 matted for 4x3 and then simply let the monitor stretch it back out to fit 16/9, would this not result in a correctly desqueezed 2.35 image and have higher resolution than a cropped 16/9 to 2.35 image would? Or am I discombobulating my sums here..... It's highly likely that I am.

 

Olly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Hi,

 

Whoops, yes, 16:9 convertors are 1.33x not 1.5x.

 

Actually I have to slightly disagree with our esteemed colleague here. Shooting a full-squash scope frame into video then recovering it to a 16:9 letterbox in post would be a good idea, particularly where you have heavily subsampled and compressed VT formats involved.

 

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...