Shoot using 2X anamorphic lens->Take advantage of HDV? at DVinfo.net

John C. Chu · February 18th, 2005, 09:38 AM

I know this has been hinted at...but just a theoretical question.

I've have experimented with using 2X squeeze Bell & Howell anamorphic lens(which you can find on eBay) which allows you to squeeze a 2.66 image onto my old DV camera. 2x times squeeze 1.33 DV frame equals 2.66 right?

This effectively yields an image in full scope. 2.66:1 ratio.

(I used a Series 7 to 46 mm adapter ring).

Unfortunately---I have to scale/fit the 2.66 image onto the 16:9 DV frame. So I'm throwing out/reducing 33% right off the bat right of those 480 lines .

So I'm only using the center part of the 16:9 frame.

Now...here the interesting question:

If you have a HD frame......with 1080 lines...
it would stand to reason that I can put the full height 480 lines...
right in the middle of the HD frame(line for line) and just horizontally stretch the frame to the full width....with black bars on top and bottom of course.

Since I also have a 16:9 anamorphic lens from Century Optics and can use it on my new PDX-10 in 16x9 mode....I could also do the double 16x9 trick.

With iMovie HD capable of editing HDV and a D-VHS deck costing about $300 bucks....I could almost do "HD" if I can figure a workflow..

I probably need a higher end NLE though.

Anybody...anybody?

How would you fit a the 2.66 DV image and scale it to the HD frame with minimal resolution loss?

This would be HD on the cheap.

Boyd Ostroff · February 18th, 2005, 09:57 AM

I think you would use After Effects, or maybe a plug-in for FCP to do the scaling. In the following thread Martin Munthe discusses doing something similar http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...&threadid=3069

Unfortunately his site doesn't seem to exist anymore. There were some pretty cool full res images there. Using the "wayback machine" however you can see some low-res versions http://web.archive.org/web/200301260...operafilm.com/

John C. Chu · February 18th, 2005, 11:55 AM

Hey...

wait a second..Eureka....it is right there in front of my eyes!
From Quicktime Movie Player Pro...I can export DV files to the Apple Intermediate codec...in either 720 or 1080 HDV...
and in custom sizes too..
Will report back to see if I can bring it into iMovie HD.

Updated:

I'm tried this experiment this evening.

1) I downloaded 15 seconds of DV shot with a 2X anamorphic lens.
2) I used QTPro to convert and scale it into Apple Intermediate Codec 1080i project at custom pixel size 1920x1080.
3) I import the resultant file into a iMovie HD 1080i HDV project.
4) I use the Virtix plug(16x9 to 4:3) to scale down the height so the image so the image is now 2.66:1. (The plug-in reduces the height another 33% I believe).
5) I have a "hd" project...but without means to export or play to a HD set...I have no idea if this time consuming experiment yielded any worthwhile results. (I think no...this was more of just an experiment).

It technically works...but I don't know if there was any improvement or degradation.

February 18th, 2005, 09:38 AM	#1
John C. Chu Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Rego Park , NYC Posts: 665	Shoot using 2X anamorphic lens->Take advantage of HDV? I know this has been hinted at...but just a theoretical question. I've have experimented with using 2X squeeze Bell & Howell anamorphic lens(which you can find on eBay) which allows you to squeeze a 2.66 image onto my old DV camera. 2x times squeeze 1.33 DV frame equals 2.66 right? This effectively yields an image in full scope. 2.66:1 ratio. (I used a Series 7 to 46 mm adapter ring). Unfortunately---I have to scale/fit the 2.66 image onto the 16:9 DV frame. So I'm throwing out/reducing 33% right off the bat right of those 480 lines . So I'm only using the center part of the 16:9 frame. Now...here the interesting question: If you have a HD frame......with 1080 lines... it would stand to reason that I can put the full height 480 lines... right in the middle of the HD frame(line for line) and just horizontally stretch the frame to the full width....with black bars on top and bottom of course. Since I also have a 16:9 anamorphic lens from Century Optics and can use it on my new PDX-10 in 16x9 mode....I could also do the double 16x9 trick. With iMovie HD capable of editing HDV and a D-VHS deck costing about $300 bucks....I could almost do "HD" if I can figure a workflow.. I probably need a higher end NLE though. Anybody...anybody? How would you fit a the 2.66 DV image and scale it to the HD frame with minimal resolution loss? This would be HD on the cheap.

February 18th, 2005, 09:57 AM	#2
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	I think you would use After Effects, or maybe a plug-in for FCP to do the scaling. In the following thread Martin Munthe discusses doing something similar http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...&threadid=3069 Unfortunately his site doesn't seem to exist anymore. There were some pretty cool full res images there. Using the "wayback machine" however you can see some low-res versions http://web.archive.org/web/200301260...operafilm.com/

February 18th, 2005, 11:55 AM	#3
John C. Chu Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Rego Park , NYC Posts: 665	Hey... wait a second..Eureka....it is right there in front of my eyes! From Quicktime Movie Player Pro...I can export DV files to the Apple Intermediate codec...in either 720 or 1080 HDV... and in custom sizes too.. Will report back to see if I can bring it into iMovie HD. Updated: I'm tried this experiment this evening. 1) I downloaded 15 seconds of DV shot with a 2X anamorphic lens. 2) I used QTPro to convert and scale it into Apple Intermediate Codec 1080i project at custom pixel size 1920x1080. 3) I import the resultant file into a iMovie HD 1080i HDV project. 4) I use the Virtix plug(16x9 to 4:3) to scale down the height so the image so the image is now 2.66:1. (The plug-in reduces the height another 33% I believe). 5) I have a "hd" project...but without means to export or play to a HD set...I have no idea if this time consuming experiment yielded any worthwhile results. (I think no...this was more of just an experiment). It technically works...but I don't know if there was any improvement or degradation.