Native 2:35:1

[Chris C. Collins]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Cgs9pkf6khs

Should I just invest in this lens and an adapter rather than a 3x Wide Angle?

[Cole McDonald]

I had debated getting hold of an anamorphic adaptor to get 16x9 on my XL1s.

Quick math time: 4x3 (1.33:1) square the numbers = 16x9 (1.77:1) square those = 256x81 (3.16:1) So it's a bit wider than cinemascope.

Fact is, lots of the s35mm stuff being shot 2.35 is done either by cropping or using an anamorphic lens. Because s35 isn't natively 2.35 either. Cinemascope was a marketing ploy to keep butts in the seats when TV started getting more popular...I love cinemascope...the marketing people did a great thing with it!

Here's a doc with info on different aspect ratios.
http://www.cinemasource.com/articles/aspect_ratios.pdf

and locally:
http://dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=20412

[Benjamin Richardson]

If you use the adapter, what happens in post? I think the DVX guys just stretch the pixels out, so as XL users what do we do? If you don't stretch the pixels out then wouldn't the picture appear warped?

[Cole McDonald]

There should be an anamoprphic checkbox somewhere in the NLE that will auutomagically stretch it back out for you.

[Boyd Ostroff]

Originally Posted by Cole McDonald

Quick math time: 4x3 (1.33:1) square the numbers = 16x9 (1.77:1) square those = 256x81 (3.16:1) So it's a bit wider than cinemascope.

I don't think your math is right there. Using your numbers, the anamorphic adaptor changes 1.33:1 into 1.77:1 and 1.77 / 1.33 = 1.33 which is like squaring 1.33 as you say. So we have therefore determined that the anamorphic lens changes the aspect ratio by a factor of 1.33. To determine what effect that would have on a native 1.77:1 image you would multiply 1.77 x 1.33 instead of squaring it, and that gives you 2.35:1.

Regardless, I don't think it makes a lot of sense. If you want to shoot 2.35:1, get an HDV camera and matte the footage. That will give you a width of 1440 pixels instead of DV's limit of 720.

[Cole McDonald]

boyd: You wanna take my next math exam ;) sorry, I carried the wrong bits forward. You are right...but they still crop or squeeze in the film world to get there...so pplpplt! :)

[Chris C. Collins]

Still, should I invest in one of these Lenses with the adaptor or just go with the 3x Wide Angle?

[Cole McDonald]

I'd get one, but the only reason would be to preserve pixels in a wider screen representation...the wide angle adaptor will actually change the properties of the image you're collecting. It depends on what you need it for. I love what the anamorphic adaptor does for you, but the wide angle will give you more lensing options...basically, just a shorter lens. Both would be ideal (more options).

[Benjamin Richardson]

Originally Posted by Cole McDonald

There should be an anamoprphic checkbox somewhere in the NLE that will auutomagically stretch it back out for you.

-For 16x9 anyways, but what if you are shooting 16x9 with an xl2, or xl-h1 that have native anamorphic sensors? What i'm thinking is that if you shoot with an xl2 with the dvx's adapter, your picture will be squished onto the 16x9 sensor, and to have an undistorted picture you would have to stretch it out further.

[Michael Krumlauf]

Chris,

i want to make clear that using the Panasonic Anamorphic adapter does give you true 2:35:1. Now as the guy said about the HDV camera, i dont have the money to just change cameras at the snap of a finger, but he is right about it. Anyway, i dont want to get in a heated debate about this because i have the proof myself and i have filmmakers that can back me up on this. If you look at the film Dancer in the Dark, that was done by shooting on the PD150's 16:9 squeeze with a custom built anamorphic lens that Lars Von Trier built resulting in 2:35:1 although it was not full res because he still was dealing with sony's squeeze function which make the image loose res. I dont understand why people need to question my methods and make me feel like complete crap, you know this one works, i have the lens on the camera in a shot and the image is MUCH wider then what u can do with the XL2 alone. Also check DVXuser, someone did this test with an HVX200 and got 2:35, thats where i got the idea from.

The frame is anamorphicly streched inside the 16:9 frame then in final cut i go to distort>aspect ratio> and set it to -36 in a 24p 16:9 timeline and i get the proper viewing of the 2:35 frame! its very cool, i like it, i know it works, and i am happy with it.




Mike

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Michael Krumlauf

I dont understand why people need to question my methods and make me feel like complete crap,

Those who are familiar with DV Info Net will tell you that we never allow those kinds of personal attacks here. If you'll notice, I've removed the offending material from this thread. In the future, instead of responding to it directly, please just use the "report bad post" button to the left of every message and a moderator will take care of it.

I apologize for letting this one get past us and go for a few days before catching it.

[Cole McDonald]

Could you walk us through your post processing of the footage to get it onto a 2.35:1 timeline? Do you check a box as I posited earlier...or do you have to scale it up manually?

[Michael Krumlauf]

I made a new thread on the Xl2 Watchdog explaining my process with this amazing lens!

Please feel free to check it out: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=95761

Mike

[Mike Tapa]

Originally Posted by Boyd Ostroff

Regardless, I don't think it makes a lot of sense. If you want to shoot 2.35:1, get an HDV camera and matte the footage. That will give you a width of 1440 pixels instead of DV's limit of 720.

But that misses the point completely.
I love anything shot in anamorphic but not because of the aspect ratio.
The real beauty of Anamo shots is the distortion of the out of focus elements of the image and the effect of focus pulls.

[Jack Barker]

Originally Posted by Mike Tapa

The real beauty of Anamo shots is the distortion of the out of focus elements of the image and the effect of focus pulls.

Sorry Mike, but I don't understand this sentence. Could you please explain?