cinemascope on xl-2 with anamorphic? at DVinfo.net

Eric Gorski · July 14th, 2004, 08:19 PM

if you added an anamorphic lense to the xl-2 while it was set to 16:9 mode, could you get something close to full widescreen (2.35:1)?

that would be dope.

thnx, eric.

Daniel Hollister · July 14th, 2004, 08:31 PM

theorietcally that's what you'd get. i think the question is - can you even mount an adapter on that lens? i'm not sure that you can.

Richard Alvarez · July 14th, 2004, 08:34 PM

Theres a new anamorphic lens out that will fit the 16x manual lens. (72mm thread)

Mark Grgurev · July 14th, 2004, 08:35 PM

I thought they recently released a 16:9 lens for the XL1s and since the XL2 is campatible with it you could get anamorphic Cinemascope image.

Jacob Ehrichs · July 15th, 2004, 09:04 AM

The biggest issue we're dealing with though is that the image recorded to the tape is still 720x480. To streach that out to 16:9 isn't too bad but the additonal stretch to 2.35:1 might be just too much for the DV frame size.

Yi Fong Yu · July 15th, 2004, 09:47 AM

which would mean that i still need to crop xl2's 16:9 mode to achieve a 2.35. that's ok by me =). it just won't be as painful and ridiculous with xl1s (less res makes 2.35 look very blurry).

PS. i took robert mann's screencap of xl2's 16:9 capabilities here:

http://fongunlimited.com/genmay/xl2wide.jpg
^720x405
then i cropped it to 2.35:
http://fongunlimited.com/genmay/2.35.jpg
^720x306.

what do you think fellas?

additionally when you burn a DVD you'll have to add in the black lines at the top because DVD flag doesn't have a "2.35" aspect ratio. i think there's 4 values: 16:9, 4:3, 1:1, 2.11:1. here is howto:

http://www.doom9.org/index.html?/aspectratios.htm
using the forumla above i have here the resolutions for those tags

16:9=853x480. Formula: 480*(16/9)=853.
4:3=640x480. Formula: 480*(4/3)= 640.
1:1=480x480. Formula: 480*(1/1)= 480.
2.11:1=1013x480. Formula: 480*(2.11/1)= 1013.

now because DVDs and miniDV can ONLY store 720x480 i will extrapolate from that and make all the above in the native resolution. now i could do math here but i just let photoshop do it for me. first i create a new document in 720x480. then i goto image size and uncheck the constraint proportions. for 16:9 i change the 720 to 853. then click ok. then i go back to image size and check the constraint proportions and change the 853 back to 720. and VOILA we have the resolution in DVD/miniDV.

16:9=720x405.
4:3=720x540.
1:1=720x720.
2.11:1=720x341

now since i want 2.35, here are the calculations of a 2.35:
2.35:1=1128x480. Formula: 480*(2.35/1)=1128.
hence:

2.35:1=720x306.

what this means is that you will need to add 35 lines worth (or about 17.5 top and 17.5 bottom) of black bars to make 2.11 into 2.35.

i hope someone understands this... cause i sure am lost.

Kurth Bousman · July 15th, 2004, 11:56 AM

Hello- I believe Adam Wilts' site has a link about this topic.

Jacob Ehrichs · July 15th, 2004, 12:27 PM

Remember that the pixels in DV are .9 wide, not truely 1 which is why it's 720x480 (.9:1 rectangle pixels 4:3) and not 640x480 (1:1 square pixels 4:3).

That's just semantics though, but it does come into play when doing the numbers as above.

Refering back to your anamorphic adapter idea though.

The adapter is going to squeeze the picture down from 2:35 to 16:9 and then the camera will capture the 16:9 and squeeze it down to record to 4:3.

It's the most optimal solution with this setup as it's utilizing the most information available but the limitation comes at the tape and the DV standard. The camera and lens options have exceeded the tape capability. Time for a new recording standard. :) HD I guess.

Anyway, you'd end up with a 'double squeezed' image that took up the whole 4:3 (720x480). Stretching that back out to 2:35 is very possible and doable but I don't think the results would be as good as we'd like but a definite improvement from the XL1 with anamorphic adapter and electronic 16:9.

I'm not sure where I'm going with this, but I enjoy discussing it. :)

July 14th, 2004, 08:19 PM	#1
Eric Gorski Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Western Oregon Posts: 138	cinemascope on xl-2 with anamorphic? if you added an anamorphic lense to the xl-2 while it was set to 16:9 mode, could you get something close to full widescreen (2.35:1)? that would be dope. thnx, eric.

July 15th, 2004, 09:47 AM	#6
Yi Fong Yu Trustee Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Vulcan Posts: 1,564	which would mean that i still need to crop xl2's 16:9 mode to achieve a 2.35. that's ok by me =). it just won't be as painful and ridiculous with xl1s (less res makes 2.35 look very blurry). PS. i took robert mann's screencap of xl2's 16:9 capabilities here: http://fongunlimited.com/genmay/xl2wide.jpg ^720x405 then i cropped it to 2.35: http://fongunlimited.com/genmay/2.35.jpg ^720x306. what do you think fellas? additionally when you burn a DVD you'll have to add in the black lines at the top because DVD flag doesn't have a "2.35" aspect ratio. i think there's 4 values: 16:9, 4:3, 1:1, 2.11:1. here is howto: http://www.doom9.org/index.html?/aspectratios.htm using the forumla above i have here the resolutions for those tags 16:9=853x480. Formula: 480(16/9)=853. 4:3=640x480. Formula: 480(4/3)= 640. 1:1=480x480. Formula: 480(1/1)= 480. 2.11:1=1013x480. Formula: 480(2.11/1)= 1013. now because DVDs and miniDV can ONLY store 720x480 i will extrapolate from that and make all the above in the native resolution. now i could do math here but i just let photoshop do it for me. first i create a new document in 720x480. then i goto image size and uncheck the constraint proportions. for 16:9 i change the 720 to 853. then click ok. then i go back to image size and check the constraint proportions and change the 853 back to 720. and VOILA we have the resolution in DVD/miniDV. 16:9=720x405. 4:3=720x540. 1:1=720x720. 2.11:1=720x341 now since i want 2.35, here are the calculations of a 2.35: 2.35:1=1128x480. Formula: 480*(2.35/1)=1128. hence: 2.35:1=720x306. what this means is that you will need to add 35 lines worth (or about 17.5 top and 17.5 bottom) of black bars to make 2.11 into 2.35. i hope someone understands this... cause i sure am lost. __________________ bow wow wow

July 14th, 2004, 08:31 PM	#2
Daniel Hollister Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Hollywood, CA Posts: 128	theorietcally that's what you'd get. i think the question is - can you even mount an adapter on that lens? i'm not sure that you can.

July 14th, 2004, 08:34 PM	#3
Richard Alvarez Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Mateo, CA Posts: 3,840	Theres a new anamorphic lens out that will fit the 16x manual lens. (72mm thread)

July 14th, 2004, 08:35 PM	#4
Mark Grgurev Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Fairview,nj Posts: 137	I thought they recently released a 16:9 lens for the XL1s and since the XL2 is campatible with it you could get anamorphic Cinemascope image.

July 15th, 2004, 09:04 AM	#5
Jacob Ehrichs Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Dayton, OH Posts: 169	The biggest issue we're dealing with though is that the image recorded to the tape is still 720x480. To streach that out to 16:9 isn't too bad but the additonal stretch to 2.35:1 might be just too much for the DV frame size.

July 15th, 2004, 11:56 AM	#7
Kurth Bousman Major Player Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: san miguel allende , gto , mexico Posts: 644	Hello- I believe Adam Wilts' site has a link about this topic.

July 15th, 2004, 12:27 PM	#8
Jacob Ehrichs Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Dayton, OH Posts: 169	Remember that the pixels in DV are .9 wide, not truely 1 which is why it's 720x480 (.9:1 rectangle pixels 4:3) and not 640x480 (1:1 square pixels 4:3). That's just semantics though, but it does come into play when doing the numbers as above. Refering back to your anamorphic adapter idea though. The adapter is going to squeeze the picture down from 2:35 to 16:9 and then the camera will capture the 16:9 and squeeze it down to record to 4:3. It's the most optimal solution with this setup as it's utilizing the most information available but the limitation comes at the tape and the DV standard. The camera and lens options have exceeded the tape capability. Time for a new recording standard. :) HD I guess. Anyway, you'd end up with a 'double squeezed' image that took up the whole 4:3 (720x480). Stretching that back out to 2:35 is very possible and doable but I don't think the results would be as good as we'd like but a definite improvement from the XL1 with anamorphic adapter and electronic 16:9. I'm not sure where I'm going with this, but I enjoy discussing it. :)