2.35:1 HDV aspect ratio:

[Dennis Murphy]

I've recorded some video with my XHA1 using the 2.35:1 framing guide.

In Vegas 7, what is the best way to create this?
Do I use the pan & crop function, and if so, what would the new pixel dimensions be (it's HDV footage) 1440x?

Thanks for any help.

[Steven Bills]

If you click on the Pan/Crop button at the end of the clip, you can see a drop down menu that says 'default'. If you click the drop down arrow, you'll find some cropping options for 4:3, 1:1, 1.78:1, and I think 1.85:1. You'll find that 2.35:1 is missing. So what I did was a little math (Width of Footage/Aspect you Want=New height of Footage -->1920/2.35=817) so what you'll need to do is hold either shift or control, (I can't recall right now), and then enter the new height value (817) on the left side of that window. Save that as your 2.35:1 crop preset, and you're all set.

Hope that helps, ask questions if it doesn't.

Steven

[Mike Kujbida]

There's a thread on the Sony Vegas forum called Matte 1.85:1 ratio on 2.35:1 footage that you might find interesting.

[Dennis Murphy]

Originally Posted by Steven Bills

New height of Footage -->1920/2.35=817)

But the HDV footage is 1440... can you please tell me how the 1920 correlates to that?

Cheers.

Thanks for the link Mike... that was interesting, but it didn't tell me how to get the 2.35:1 aspect ratio pixel height for 1440 pixel width.

I suck at math.

Cheers.

[Mike Kujbida]

Originally Posted by Dennis Murphy

But the HDV footage is 1440... can you please tell me how the 1920 correlates to that?

HDV has an aspect ratio of 1.333.
Multiply that by 1440 and you get 1920.

...it didn't tell me how to get the 2.35:1 aspect ratio pixel height for 1440 pixel width.

I was hoping that the explanation by farss (3rd response in the thread) might be of some help.

I suck at math.

Welcome to the club.
Televison was so much easier in the analog days :-)

[Marty Baggen]

Originally Posted by Mike Kujbida

Televison was so much easier in the analog days :-)

No it wasn't! =)

[Mike Kujbida]

Originally Posted by Marty Baggen

No it wasn't! =)

Troubleshooting was much easier because you had a pile ($$$) of dedicated machines that each did one job and one job only.
There were no codec issues to worry about.
The "portable" gear was much heavier which meant that you got a good workout on each and every shoot, whether you wanted to or not.

:-)

[Dennis Murphy]

Cheers Mike!

[Stuart Campbell]

Originally Posted by Mike Kujbida

The "portable" gear was much heavier which meant that you got a good workout on each and every shoot, whether you wanted to or not.:-)

It was certainly heavier but at least the budgets were in place to pay for proper crews. A normal news item meant going out with

1:Reporter
2:Cameraman
3:Sound recordist
4:Lighting Operator (if required)

Now, it's just me and a reporter. In the future it'll just be the reporter (as is already happening and has been for a few years)!

Bring back heavy analogue kit! ha ha