true 16:9
 

Hey guys, I have a gl1 with an anamorphic adapter (True 16:9). Would I lose quality if I cropped it for 2.35:1?

You don't "lose quality," but you do lose the pixels which will have black bars on them. Unfortunately this is the only way to do 2.35:1, unless you want to get into upconverting to HD or using a projector with an anamorphic lens.

Using a projector with an anamorphic lens won't work. It would stretch your 16:9 image out too wide.

These are your only options:

1) Crop in post. You will loose roughly 25% of your resolution (assuming you shoot 16:9).
2) Shoot with an anamorphic projector lens instead of a 16:9 lens. This will create a 2.66 image - noticably wider than 2.35 but an interesting option.
3) Make your own anamorphic lens

I will lose 25% of resolution??? By my anamorphic adapter will give me true 16:9. Using a 2:35:1 will make the resolution 25% worse??

Normal 16/9 is (I think) 1.85 aspect ratio.
You want 2.35 aspect ratio, that's I think almost the double or something. So If you would want it at full resolution, you would have to have OR a 2.35 adaptor (I don't know if that exists for DV cams) or crop it in post, so you have 2 times 1.85 = 2.35.
But yes then you'll loose some resolution, but... resolution isn't that important unless you plan to blow it up.

Good luck.

Actually, 16/9 is 1.78 (divide 16.... by 9!). But it is pretty close to 1.85:1 indeed.

Aaron, you don't understand what I'm suggesting - sorry, I didn't explain. If you set the camera for anamorphic widescreen mode ("electronic 16:9") and you also put the anamorphic lens on it, then you'll end up with roughtly 2.35:1 anamorphic on your tape.

Now when you project this, set the projector for anamorphic 16:9 mode and use an anamorphic lens on it. That will unsqueeze this back to 2.35:1. This is one company that makes a lens you could use http://www.panamorph.com

Ah ok! Thanks for clarifying Boyd!

Matt: By cropping a true 16:9 image to 2.35 you loose about 25% of the image resolution (it's covered by black bars).

<<<-- Originally posted by Rob Lohman : Actually, 16/9 is 1.78 (divide 16.... by 9!). But it is pretty close to 1.85:1 indeed. -->>>

Thanks for clearing that up, I was still doubting between the two :-)