2.39:1 ratio question

[Jeff Herman]

I'm trying to understand how to convert to the 2.39:1 format from the standard 16x9 format that my camera shoots in. I see three possibilities on how to use this ratio in my projects:

 

a) Originally shoot scene as 16x9 and stretch video image to 2.39:1 in post (i.e., no actual cropping to the image).

b) Originally shoot with an anamorphic lens (i.e., no cropping and no additional work in post).

c) Originally shoot as 16x9, but in post crop to the 2.39:1 ratio (i.e., loss of content on the top and bottom of the frames).

 

Assuming I have no anamorphic lens (which rules out b), what is the most accepted means to get the 2.39:1 widescreen format in post (a or c)? In the case of c, then I would need to be careful in shooting the scenes that the video image of the actor heads are not cut off when cropping the top and bottom portions of the video frame. My preference is (a), but that might overly distort actor faces (etc.).

 

I would appreciate an answer to this question if anyone knows. Thanks.

Edited August 1, 2011 by Jeff Herman

[dan kessler]

Choice (a) will definitely distort the image.

[Jon Schweigart]

When shooting mask out a 2:35:1 guide on your viewfinder so you have breathing room in the frame. If you don't do this everything will look tighter and crammed when you crop to 2:35:1. In my NLE I usually put on the 2:35:1 Matte so I can adjust for headroom. In the export you need to know the correct aspect ratio so it crops and gets rid of the letterbox. So for example if you're doing a 1080p web video select maintain aspect ratio with crop, with a custom ratio of 1920x816.

[David Mullen ASC]

A is not an option.

 

2.39 isn't a video display format, so the question is what are you shooting 2.39 for -- for HD video display, meaning a 16x9 HD master with a 2.39 letterbox, or for theatrical release, which means a film-out to 35mm anamorphic (scope) or a 2K digital cinema package?

 

If you could find the rare 1.3X Hawk anamorphic lenses made by Vantage, you could squeeze a 2.39 image onto a 16x9 HD sensor and recording, but at some point you'd have to make a conversion to 2.39 letterbox from broadcast and home video. But the film-out at least could use all 1920 x 1080 pixels to create a 2.39 version.

 

But since that option is rarely done, most people just compose 16x9 for cropping to 2.39. Many digital cameras can generate frameline guides in the EVF for this.

[Darrell Ayer]

A is not an option.

 

2.39 isn't a video display format, so the question is what are you shooting 2.39 for -- for HD video display, meaning a 16x9 HD master with a 2.39 letterbox, or for theatrical release, which means a film-out to 35mm anamorphic (scope) or a 2K digital cinema package?

 

If you could find the rare 1.3X Hawk anamorphic lenses made by Vantage, you could squeeze a 2.39 image onto a 16x9 HD sensor and recording, but at some point you'd have to make a conversion to 2.39 letterbox from broadcast and home video. But the film-out at least could use all 1920 x 1080 pixels to create a 2.39 version.

 

But since that option is rarely done, most people just compose 16x9 for cropping to 2.39. Many digital cameras can generate frameline guides in the EVF for this.

 

David,

What are your thoughts on the Panasonic 1.33x anamorphic (LA7200 16:9 conversion lens)? I know it's not cinema quality (read: sharp) but do you have any feelings about this as an option?

[David Mullen ASC]

David,

What are your thoughts on the Panasonic 1.33x anamorphic (LA7200 16:9 conversion lens)? I know it's not cinema quality (read: sharp) but do you have any feelings about this as an option?

 

For a DV camera, it's fine but not sure I'd use it on anything else except small-screen stuff.

[Freya Black]

 

a) Originally shoot scene as 16x9 and stretch video image to 2.39:1 in post (i.e., no actual cropping to the image).

B) Originally shoot with an anamorphic lens (i.e., no cropping and no additional work in post).

c) Originally shoot as 16x9, but in post crop to the 2.39:1 ratio (i.e., loss of content on the top and bottom of the frames).

 

 

Assuming you were working with video then for b you would still need to unsquish the image by stretching it to 2.39:1, the difference is that it would look normal unlike the mess you would get if you went with a.

 

If you were making a film print OTOH then the projector would do the unsquishing for you.

 

love

 

Freya

[David Mullen ASC]

Assuming you were working with video then for b you would still need to unsquish the image by stretching it to 2.39:1, the difference is that it would look normal unlike the mess you would get if you went with a.

 

If you were making a film print OTOH then the projector would do the unsquishing for you.

 

love

 

Freya

 

The projector would use a 2X horizontal stretch for a scope print, so your image transferred to 35mm with have to have a 2X horizontal squeeze -- if you use a 1.33X adaptor on a 16x9 camera, then you'd have to convert that 1.33X squeeze to a 2X squeeze at some point. Probably the people doing the digital-to-film transfer would just uprez everything to 2K in the 2.39 aspect ratio (unsqueeze it basically), and then let the laser recorder add the 2X squeeze for the final scope image on film.