Anamorphic Adapter for HD10U
 

Aloha,

Does anyone know of an anamorphic adapter (16:9) that works witht the HD10U? I have been reading about using an anamorphic adapter with a 16:9 image to get a 2.35:1 widescreen image. I really like the look of 2.35:1 and want to try check it out. Here is the link I have found this information:

http://members.macconnect.com/users/b/ben/widescreen/

Try:

http://www.centuryoptics.com/products/dv/camera/6.htm

Century Precision Optics also has a higher end anamorphic 16:9, but it's much more expensive.

What would the effect be of shooting in 16x9 (which you can't shut off that I know of on the HD10) with an anamorphic adaptor. Anyone want to field that?

heath

Heath,

That is what the URL I posted is all about. Basically 16:9 is 1.77:1(1.77 wide x 1 tall). Normal widesrceen 35mm is 2.35:1 (2.35 wide x 1 tall). Quite a bit of difference. By putting a 16x9 adapter on the front of a camera that is already shooting 16:9 you end up close to 2.35:1 final image. This reduces your horizontal resolution, but with the HD10U there is resolution to spare (compared to DV). So instead of an image 1280x720 we should get an image of 1690x720.

The real problem is 2.35:1 looks great in a movie theatre (i.e transfered to 35mm), but most people don't like that much black at the top and bottom of their 4:3 television and The 30p of the HD10U makes transfer to 35mm difficult. I still think this is a great option for us digital filmmakers to have in our bag of tricks.

The math is actually very simple: an anamorphic adaptor stretches an image with a 1.33 aspect ratio to 1.78. Divide that out and 1.78/1.33=1.338, therefore the anamorphic adaptor stretches your image horizontally by 33.8% Now if you start out with a camera that is native 16:9 the calculation would be 1.78 x 1.338 = 2.38, which is pretty close to 2.35:1 (these numbers are all rounded off a bit).

This has been discussed here WRT shooting 2.35:1 on regular DV. Do a search on Martin Munthe; he has done some very nice work using this technique with a PAL PD-150. But one of the real issues is what to do with any footage that you shoot this way. Seems that in the end you will need to letterbox it in a 16:9 frame anyhow. This being the case, it may be easier and just about as good to shoot 16:9 and letterbox in post. Saves the trouble of working with "squashed" images when you shoot and edit.

But the whole topic also interests me, and I'd love to hear if anyone is shooting 2.35:1 and also how they are presenting the finished footage. I think one possible solution would be to put an anamorphic lens on your 16:9 video projector. I vaguely recall reading about such things on a home theatre website.

I have one question about this. If you put the anamorphic lens on the camera, and 'squished' the 16:9 image I can understand how you would build a very wide wide screen image. But then how would you display it?

A true anamorphic lens is going to still use the whole frame. Normally when playing back anamorphic DVDs on a projector, you simply use an anamorphic 'squeeze' to compress the normal 4:3 aspect ratio image into a 16:9 aspect ratio image. You get the same number of lines of resoution, but in a smaller vertical space, making the picture look sharper. How you would do that with a 2.35:1 aspect ratio image?

I don't see too much of a problem with that going to DVD, etc., with more black bars on one's TV.

But here's another question:

I used to be a projectionist, and we dealt with "flat" and "scope." Flat wasn't quite as wide, and scope was much wider. The movies in flat looked normal when inspecting the 35mm print, but the movies in scope looked stretched out vertically, much like 16x9 before it's "flattened," when inspecting the 35 mm print. Anyone want to field what the aspect ratios are on both?

heath

Here's a great website that will tell you just about everything you could possibly want to know about the various forms of widescreen movies...

Wow, sure does.
Thanks Boyd.
Ken

<<<-- Originally posted by Heath McKnight : I don't see too much of a problem with that going to DVD, etc., with more black bars on one's TV.

But here's another question:

I used to be a projectionist, and we dealt with "flat" and "scope." Flat wasn't quite as wide, and scope was much wider. The movies in flat looked normal when inspecting the 35mm print, but the movies in scope looked stretched out vertically, much like 16x9 before it's "flattened," when inspecting the 35 mm print. Anyone want to field what the aspect ratios are on both?

heath -->>>

Flat is 1.85:1. It's a 1.37:1 frame with black bars on the top and bottom.

"Scope" is approximately 2.39:1. It's a 1.2:1 section of the film print, squeezed horizontally with a 2:1 anamorphic lens.