2.35:1 on XL2 at DVinfo.net

Benjamin Kantor · November 26th, 2004, 02:02 PM

I'd like to shoot some 2.35:1 on the XL2. I thought this could possibly be achieved with the Anamorphic adapter by Century Optics (http://www.centuryoptics.com/products/dv/133x/index.htm) combined with already being in 16:9 mode. At 480 height, a 2.35:1 image should be 1128 wide.

However, If a 4:3 frame is stretched to 16:9, then the square pixels are now 1.1861:1 pixels. If they are stretched again the same amount, then 1.186^2 = 1.4069:1 pixels. This would yield a frame width of about 1013. 1013x480 is a 2.11:1 aspect ratio.

Has anyone done any testing that can confirm that this number (2.11:1 @ 1013x480) is correct? If it is, are there any thoughts on creating an actual 2.35:1 image? There was a post about this before, but it didn't really reach any conclusions. I'm very curious if anyone has actually tried this, and if there is possibly something funny looking about 1.4:1 pixels. It seems like stretching the frame that much could cause problems.

Barry Green · November 26th, 2004, 02:17 PM

DV is a 4:3 aspect ratio or 16:9 aspect ratio, but in both circumstances what's recorded is 720x480. The difference is in the pixel aspect ratio, not in the number of pixels.

So if you recorded with an anamorphic adapter, you'll still be recording 720x480.

The anamorphic adapters use a squeeze ratio of 1.333333:1. The XL2's 16:9 mode records at 1.777777:1. So adding an anamorphic adapter would give you a ratio of (1.777777 x 1.33333 =) 2.37:1. Still recorded at 720x480.

However, you wouldn't be able to display that properly on any television set. You'd have to unsqueeze it to be able to display it... perhaps on a WMV file on a computer. If you want to display it on a television you'd have to resize the image to 720x360 and letterbox it, and then play it on a widescreen TV.

If you want to shoot 2.37:1 for display on a television screen, ignore the anamorphic adapter and just letterbox the footage. That's how Hollywood scope movies are transferred to DVD.

Benjamin Kantor · November 26th, 2004, 02:26 PM

Thanks Barry. In my case, the final output is digital projection, so more resolution is beneficial. I'm going to go ahead and buy the anamorphic adapter and try shooting with the XL2 in 16:9 mode, and then having FCP stretch it to a 2.37:1 ratio.

Pete Bauer · November 26th, 2004, 03:15 PM

Barry beat me to the punch (how dare my job interfere with posting on DVinfo.net!). He's got the numbers right, of course. As long as you know any projector that might be used to display your footage can properly handle 2.35.

BUT, just to make sure you're aware before you buy: the only anamorphic adaptor for the XL system on Century Optics' website is the VS-WS13-MXL, which costs $1250 and per Century Optics will ONLY work via bayonet mount on the 16x lens, and presumably no other XL lenses.

John Jay · November 26th, 2004, 08:45 PM

The use of a 16:9 anamorphic with the XL2 is a sort of escape route to the world of HDV

If you shoot 16:9 progressive with the anamorphic fitted but instead of squeezing down to 360 as you would need to for a DV project, you stretch horizontally to 960 so that your frame size is 540 x 960 (anamorphic) then you can pop the footage into a 720P HDV project and have some quite reasonable faux cinemascope HDV

November 26th, 2004, 02:02 PM	#1
Benjamin Kantor Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 43	2.35:1 on XL2 I'd like to shoot some 2.35:1 on the XL2. I thought this could possibly be achieved with the Anamorphic adapter by Century Optics (http://www.centuryoptics.com/products/dv/133x/index.htm) combined with already being in 16:9 mode. At 480 height, a 2.35:1 image should be 1128 wide. However, If a 4:3 frame is stretched to 16:9, then the square pixels are now 1.1861:1 pixels. If they are stretched again the same amount, then 1.186^2 = 1.4069:1 pixels. This would yield a frame width of about 1013. 1013x480 is a 2.11:1 aspect ratio. Has anyone done any testing that can confirm that this number (2.11:1 @ 1013x480) is correct? If it is, are there any thoughts on creating an actual 2.35:1 image? There was a post about this before, but it didn't really reach any conclusions. I'm very curious if anyone has actually tried this, and if there is possibly something funny looking about 1.4:1 pixels. It seems like stretching the frame that much could cause problems.

November 26th, 2004, 03:15 PM	#4
Pete Bauer Wrangler Join Date: May 2003 Location: Eagle River, AK Posts: 4,100	Barry beat me to the punch (how dare my job interfere with posting on DVinfo.net!). He's got the numbers right, of course. As long as you know any projector that might be used to display your footage can properly handle 2.35. BUT, just to make sure you're aware before you buy: the only anamorphic adaptor for the XL system on Century Optics' website is the VS-WS13-MXL, which costs $1250 and per Century Optics will ONLY work via bayonet mount on the 16x lens, and presumably no other XL lenses. __________________ Pete Bauer The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. Albert Einstein Trying to solve a DV mystery? You may find the answer behind the SEARCH function ... or be able to join a discussion already in progress!

November 26th, 2004, 08:45 PM	#5
John Jay Major Player Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: US & THEM Posts: 827	The use of a 16:9 anamorphic with the XL2 is a sort of escape route to the world of HDV If you shoot 16:9 progressive with the anamorphic fitted but instead of squeezing down to 360 as you would need to for a DV project, you stretch horizontally to 960 so that your frame size is 540 x 960 (anamorphic) then you can pop the footage into a 720P HDV project and have some quite reasonable faux cinemascope HDV __________________ John Jay Beware *PLUGGER-BYTES*

November 26th, 2004, 02:17 PM	#2
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	DV is a 4:3 aspect ratio or 16:9 aspect ratio, but in both circumstances what's recorded is 720x480. The difference is in the pixel aspect ratio, not in the number of pixels. So if you recorded with an anamorphic adapter, you'll still be recording 720x480. The anamorphic adapters use a squeeze ratio of 1.333333:1. The XL2's 16:9 mode records at 1.777777:1. So adding an anamorphic adapter would give you a ratio of (1.777777 x 1.33333 =) 2.37:1. Still recorded at 720x480. However, you wouldn't be able to display that properly on any television set. You'd have to unsqueeze it to be able to display it... perhaps on a WMV file on a computer. If you want to display it on a television you'd have to resize the image to 720x360 and letterbox it, and then play it on a widescreen TV. If you want to shoot 2.37:1 for display on a television screen, ignore the anamorphic adapter and just letterbox the footage. That's how Hollywood scope movies are transferred to DVD.

November 26th, 2004, 02:26 PM	#3
Benjamin Kantor Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 43	Thanks Barry. In my case, the final output is digital projection, so more resolution is beneficial. I'm going to go ahead and buy the anamorphic adapter and try shooting with the XL2 in 16:9 mode, and then having FCP stretch it to a 2.37:1 ratio.