extreme wide screen with the 100a at DVinfo.net

Ozan Biron · January 9th, 2004, 02:45 AM

With the 100a... has anyone tried using a 16:9 lens with squeeze mode on! Does that qive an extreme wide screen look? Does it effect quality? Any point in doing that?

Barry Green · January 9th, 2004, 09:52 AM

It will give you a 2.35:1 "CinemaScope" aspect ratio...

... that can't be played properly on any television.

If you're going to make something like a web video with it, you could unsqueeze it and crop it, but web videos are typically highly compressed and will sacrifice whatever resolution gains you were trying to get.

If you wanted to make a widescreen film print, it might have applicability, but other than that it's a fairly pointless thing to do.

A better choice in almost all circumstances would be to shoot with the 16:9 lens and "letterbox" mode -- that way you'll still get a 2.35:1 aspect ratio, but at least it would display properly on 16:9 televisions or from an anamorphically-encoded DVD.

Frank Gapinski · January 11th, 2004, 03:13 PM

A good example of this technique can be found here:

http://homepage.mac.com/shailevy/camera/presentderbesuch.html

Ozan Biron · January 11th, 2004, 03:53 PM

The dimensions to that above video is 600x255! How do you calculate the dimensions for a 2.35:1 "CinemaScope" aspect ratio for web streaming video downloads???

For example videos plays in of dimensions 320x240, 640x480, 720x480 is 4:3 ratio. What will the dimensions be for a 2.35:1 ratio?

Kenn Christenson · January 12th, 2004, 11:37 AM

2.35:1 is probably one of the easiest aspect ratios to calculate. Just take the height you want the image to be, then multiply that by 2.35 to get the width. Say you want your video to be 240 pixels high, just multiply 240 by 2.35 which will give you a width of 564 pixels. If you need to work backward because you want all the image to be seen on a standard 4:3 monitor, start by dividing the NTSC D1/DV pixel width (720) by 2.35 which will give you 306.383. You will then need to divide 306.383 by 1.125 to adjust for the non-square pixels. The result will be 272.3404, rounded down to 272 pixels high. So a 2:35 letterboxed DV image will be 720x272.

Ozan Biron · January 12th, 2004, 04:51 PM

What about for a 16:9 ratio. Is it the same way to calculate? Take the height you want the image to be, then multiply that by 1.78 to get the width?

Kenn Christenson · January 12th, 2004, 05:50 PM

That's right! And, if you only know the width of the image, you'd divide the width by 1:78 to get the height.

Ozan Biron · January 12th, 2004, 09:08 PM

"You will then need to divide 306.383 by 1.125 to adjust for the non-square pixels."

non-square pixels? wa? Do i also have to do the same for the 16:9 ratio? What will the demensions be for a 16:9 image to be on a 4:3 monitor? 720x404?

Kenn Christenson · January 13th, 2004, 10:04 AM

720x480 video doesn't use square pixels, hence the more rectangular shape when viewing the video in an application like After Effects. If you're calculating an aspect ratio that will be used in a NTSC digital video format, you'll have to take into account the effect of non-square pixels. So a 16:9 image in non-square pixels would actually be closer to 720x360 (dividing 404 by 1.125.)

Ozan Biron · January 14th, 2004, 06:56 PM

Im still a rookie with this 2.35:1 ratio stuff! So i just want to make sure...

If i technically filmed with my anamorphic lens and had the letter-box mode on... I could then capture, import my video into after effects, open a 720x480 composition window, set one ruler to (104) at the top and another to (376) at the bottom! Because 480 - 272 = 208 / 2 = 104. Minusing 104 from the top and 104 bottom gives me my "CinemaScope" quide lines. I would then scale the video hight down to 73% to fit in between the rulers!

Is this Correct?!?

Kenn Christenson · January 15th, 2004, 11:42 AM

It's actually easier than that. Assuming you have the in-camera 16:9 mode selected (resulting in a full frame anamorphic image) and you are using a 16:9 anamorphic adapter. Just divide the height of the 2.35:1 letterboxed frame (272) by the standard height of the frame (480) this will yield the percentage you will need to scale your image in After Effects (.566667, rounded up to .57 or 57%.)

Ozan Biron · January 15th, 2004, 11:56 AM

instead of "in-camera 16:9 mode selected" im using the "letter-box mode with the 16:9 lens. Doesnt that give the same effect has 2.35:1! So instead of 57% wont it be 73% cause there black bars already recorded....

Kenn Christenson · January 15th, 2004, 04:40 PM

If your image is already letterboxed in the 16:9 aspect ratio then, essentially, you'll have to apply another 16:9 vertical squeeze to your footage. You calculate the amount of squeeze (scale) by dividing the height of a letterboxed 16:9 frame (360) by the entire frame's height (480) giving you .75. So you'll need to scale your image down to 75% of its original height.

Jon Fordham · January 17th, 2004, 01:10 PM

For 4/3 television display, calculating the width as 720 is fine. But keep in mind that when calculating the width for any other application, the anamorphic lens is actually giving you a wider aspect ratio while maintaing the 480 vertical height.

January 9th, 2004, 02:45 AM	#1
Ozan Biron Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Vancouver, CANADA Posts: 137	extreme wide screen with the 100a With the 100a... has anyone tried using a 16:9 lens with squeeze mode on! Does that qive an extreme wide screen look? Does it effect quality? Any point in doing that?

January 11th, 2004, 03:13 PM	#3
Frank Gapinski Tourist Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 1	2.35:1 "CinemaScope" aspect ratio A good example of this technique can be found here: http://homepage.mac.com/shailevy/camera/presentderbesuch.html

January 9th, 2004, 09:52 AM	#2
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	It will give you a 2.35:1 "CinemaScope" aspect ratio... ... that can't be played properly on any television. If you're going to make something like a web video with it, you could unsqueeze it and crop it, but web videos are typically highly compressed and will sacrifice whatever resolution gains you were trying to get. If you wanted to make a widescreen film print, it might have applicability, but other than that it's a fairly pointless thing to do. A better choice in almost all circumstances would be to shoot with the 16:9 lens and "letterbox" mode -- that way you'll still get a 2.35:1 aspect ratio, but at least it would display properly on 16:9 televisions or from an anamorphically-encoded DVD.

January 11th, 2004, 03:53 PM	#4
Ozan Biron Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Vancouver, CANADA Posts: 137	The dimensions to that above video is 600x255! How do you calculate the dimensions for a 2.35:1 "CinemaScope" aspect ratio for web streaming video downloads??? For example videos plays in of dimensions 320x240, 640x480, 720x480 is 4:3 ratio. What will the dimensions be for a 2.35:1 ratio?

January 12th, 2004, 11:37 AM	#5
Kenn Christenson Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Medford Oregon Posts: 152	2.35:1 is probably one of the easiest aspect ratios to calculate. Just take the height you want the image to be, then multiply that by 2.35 to get the width. Say you want your video to be 240 pixels high, just multiply 240 by 2.35 which will give you a width of 564 pixels. If you need to work backward because you want all the image to be seen on a standard 4:3 monitor, start by dividing the NTSC D1/DV pixel width (720) by 2.35 which will give you 306.383. You will then need to divide 306.383 by 1.125 to adjust for the non-square pixels. The result will be 272.3404, rounded down to 272 pixels high. So a 2:35 letterboxed DV image will be 720x272.

January 12th, 2004, 04:51 PM	#6
Ozan Biron Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Vancouver, CANADA Posts: 137	What about for a 16:9 ratio. Is it the same way to calculate? Take the height you want the image to be, then multiply that by 1.78 to get the width?

January 12th, 2004, 05:50 PM	#7
Kenn Christenson Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Medford Oregon Posts: 152	That's right! And, if you only know the width of the image, you'd divide the width by 1:78 to get the height.

January 12th, 2004, 09:08 PM	#8
Ozan Biron Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Vancouver, CANADA Posts: 137	"You will then need to divide 306.383 by 1.125 to adjust for the non-square pixels." non-square pixels? wa? Do i also have to do the same for the 16:9 ratio? What will the demensions be for a 16:9 image to be on a 4:3 monitor? 720x404?

January 13th, 2004, 10:04 AM	#9
Kenn Christenson Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Medford Oregon Posts: 152	720x480 video doesn't use square pixels, hence the more rectangular shape when viewing the video in an application like After Effects. If you're calculating an aspect ratio that will be used in a NTSC digital video format, you'll have to take into account the effect of non-square pixels. So a 16:9 image in non-square pixels would actually be closer to 720x360 (dividing 404 by 1.125.)

January 14th, 2004, 06:56 PM	#10
Ozan Biron Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Vancouver, CANADA Posts: 137	Im still a rookie with this 2.35:1 ratio stuff! So i just want to make sure... If i technically filmed with my anamorphic lens and had the letter-box mode on... I could then capture, import my video into after effects, open a 720x480 composition window, set one ruler to (104) at the top and another to (376) at the bottom! Because 480 - 272 = 208 / 2 = 104. Minusing 104 from the top and 104 bottom gives me my "CinemaScope" quide lines. I would then scale the video hight down to 73% to fit in between the rulers! Is this Correct?!?

January 15th, 2004, 11:42 AM	#11
Kenn Christenson Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Medford Oregon Posts: 152	It's actually easier than that. Assuming you have the in-camera 16:9 mode selected (resulting in a full frame anamorphic image) and you are using a 16:9 anamorphic adapter. Just divide the height of the 2.35:1 letterboxed frame (272) by the standard height of the frame (480) this will yield the percentage you will need to scale your image in After Effects (.566667, rounded up to .57 or 57%.)

January 15th, 2004, 11:56 AM	#12
Ozan Biron Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Vancouver, CANADA Posts: 137	instead of "in-camera 16:9 mode selected" im using the "letter-box mode with the 16:9 lens. Doesnt that give the same effect has 2.35:1! So instead of 57% wont it be 73% cause there black bars already recorded....

January 15th, 2004, 04:40 PM	#13
Kenn Christenson Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Medford Oregon Posts: 152	If your image is already letterboxed in the 16:9 aspect ratio then, essentially, you'll have to apply another 16:9 vertical squeeze to your footage. You calculate the amount of squeeze (scale) by dividing the height of a letterboxed 16:9 frame (360) by the entire frame's height (480) giving you .75. So you'll need to scale your image down to 75% of its original height.

January 17th, 2004, 01:10 PM	#14
Jon Fordham Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: New York, NY Posts: 242	For 4/3 television display, calculating the width as 720 is fine. But keep in mind that when calculating the width for any other application, the anamorphic lens is actually giving you a wider aspect ratio while maintaing the 480 vertical height.