Anamorphic Adapter for HD10U at DVinfo.net

Dustin Cross · December 1st, 2003, 02:57 PM

Aloha,

Does anyone know of an anamorphic adapter (16:9) that works witht the HD10U? I have been reading about using an anamorphic adapter with a 16:9 image to get a 2.35:1 widescreen image. I really like the look of 2.35:1 and want to try check it out. Here is the link I have found this information:

http://members.macconnect.com/users/b/ben/widescreen/

Kenn Christenson · December 1st, 2003, 03:08 PM

Try:

http://www.centuryoptics.com/products/dv/camera/6.htm

Century Precision Optics also has a higher end anamorphic 16:9, but it's much more expensive.

Heath McKnight · December 1st, 2003, 07:15 PM

What would the effect be of shooting in 16x9 (which you can't shut off that I know of on the HD10) with an anamorphic adaptor. Anyone want to field that?

heath

Dustin Cross · December 1st, 2003, 08:26 PM

Heath,

That is what the URL I posted is all about. Basically 16:9 is 1.77:1(1.77 wide x 1 tall). Normal widesrceen 35mm is 2.35:1 (2.35 wide x 1 tall). Quite a bit of difference. By putting a 16x9 adapter on the front of a camera that is already shooting 16:9 you end up close to 2.35:1 final image. This reduces your horizontal resolution, but with the HD10U there is resolution to spare (compared to DV). So instead of an image 1280x720 we should get an image of 1690x720.

The real problem is 2.35:1 looks great in a movie theatre (i.e transfered to 35mm), but most people don't like that much black at the top and bottom of their 4:3 television and The 30p of the HD10U makes transfer to 35mm difficult. I still think this is a great option for us digital filmmakers to have in our bag of tricks.

Boyd Ostroff · December 1st, 2003, 09:13 PM

The math is actually very simple: an anamorphic adaptor stretches an image with a 1.33 aspect ratio to 1.78. Divide that out and 1.78/1.33=1.338, therefore the anamorphic adaptor stretches your image horizontally by 33.8% Now if you start out with a camera that is native 16:9 the calculation would be 1.78 x 1.338 = 2.38, which is pretty close to 2.35:1 (these numbers are all rounded off a bit).

This has been discussed here WRT shooting 2.35:1 on regular DV. Do a search on Martin Munthe; he has done some very nice work using this technique with a PAL PD-150. But one of the real issues is what to do with any footage that you shoot this way. Seems that in the end you will need to letterbox it in a 16:9 frame anyhow. This being the case, it may be easier and just about as good to shoot 16:9 and letterbox in post. Saves the trouble of working with "squashed" images when you shoot and edit.

But the whole topic also interests me, and I'd love to hear if anyone is shooting 2.35:1 and also how they are presenting the finished footage. I think one possible solution would be to put an anamorphic lens on your 16:9 video projector. I vaguely recall reading about such things on a home theatre website.

Bill Piedra · December 2nd, 2003, 01:28 PM

I have one question about this. If you put the anamorphic lens on the camera, and 'squished' the 16:9 image I can understand how you would build a very wide wide screen image. But then how would you display it?

A true anamorphic lens is going to still use the whole frame. Normally when playing back anamorphic DVDs on a projector, you simply use an anamorphic 'squeeze' to compress the normal 4:3 aspect ratio image into a 16:9 aspect ratio image. You get the same number of lines of resoution, but in a smaller vertical space, making the picture look sharper. How you would do that with a 2.35:1 aspect ratio image?

Heath McKnight · December 2nd, 2003, 02:36 PM

I don't see too much of a problem with that going to DVD, etc., with more black bars on one's TV.

But here's another question:

I used to be a projectionist, and we dealt with "flat" and "scope." Flat wasn't quite as wide, and scope was much wider. The movies in flat looked normal when inspecting the 35mm print, but the movies in scope looked stretched out vertically, much like 16x9 before it's "flattened," when inspecting the 35 mm print. Anyone want to field what the aspect ratios are on both?

heath

Boyd Ostroff · December 2nd, 2003, 02:41 PM

Here's a great website that will tell you just about everything you could possibly want to know about the various forms of widescreen movies...

Ken Hodson · December 2nd, 2003, 04:01 PM

Wow, sure does.
Thanks Boyd.
Ken

Barry Green · December 2nd, 2003, 09:00 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Heath McKnight : I don't see too much of a problem with that going to DVD, etc., with more black bars on one's TV.

But here's another question:

I used to be a projectionist, and we dealt with "flat" and "scope." Flat wasn't quite as wide, and scope was much wider. The movies in flat looked normal when inspecting the 35mm print, but the movies in scope looked stretched out vertically, much like 16x9 before it's "flattened," when inspecting the 35 mm print. Anyone want to field what the aspect ratios are on both?

heath -->>>

Flat is 1.85:1. It's a 1.37:1 frame with black bars on the top and bottom.

"Scope" is approximately 2.39:1. It's a 1.2:1 section of the film print, squeezed horizontally with a 2:1 anamorphic lens.

December 1st, 2003, 02:57 PM	#1
Dustin Cross Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Austin, Texas Posts: 133	Anamorphic Adapter for HD10U Aloha, Does anyone know of an anamorphic adapter (16:9) that works witht the HD10U? I have been reading about using an anamorphic adapter with a 16:9 image to get a 2.35:1 widescreen image. I really like the look of 2.35:1 and want to try check it out. Here is the link I have found this information: http://members.macconnect.com/users/b/ben/widescreen/ __________________ Mahalo, Dusty

December 1st, 2003, 07:15 PM	#3
Heath McKnight MPS Digital Studios Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Palm Beach County, Florida Posts: 8,531	What would the effect be of shooting in 16x9 (which you can't shut off that I know of on the HD10) with an anamorphic adaptor. Anyone want to field that? heath __________________ My Final Cut Pro X blog

December 1st, 2003, 08:26 PM	#4
Dustin Cross Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Austin, Texas Posts: 133	Heath, That is what the URL I posted is all about. Basically 16:9 is 1.77:1(1.77 wide x 1 tall). Normal widesrceen 35mm is 2.35:1 (2.35 wide x 1 tall). Quite a bit of difference. By putting a 16x9 adapter on the front of a camera that is already shooting 16:9 you end up close to 2.35:1 final image. This reduces your horizontal resolution, but with the HD10U there is resolution to spare (compared to DV). So instead of an image 1280x720 we should get an image of 1690x720. The real problem is 2.35:1 looks great in a movie theatre (i.e transfered to 35mm), but most people don't like that much black at the top and bottom of their 4:3 television and The 30p of the HD10U makes transfer to 35mm difficult. I still think this is a great option for us digital filmmakers to have in our bag of tricks. __________________ Mahalo, Dusty

December 2nd, 2003, 02:36 PM	#7
Heath McKnight MPS Digital Studios Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Palm Beach County, Florida Posts: 8,531	I don't see too much of a problem with that going to DVD, etc., with more black bars on one's TV. But here's another question: I used to be a projectionist, and we dealt with "flat" and "scope." Flat wasn't quite as wide, and scope was much wider. The movies in flat looked normal when inspecting the 35mm print, but the movies in scope looked stretched out vertically, much like 16x9 before it's "flattened," when inspecting the 35 mm print. Anyone want to field what the aspect ratios are on both? heath __________________ My Final Cut Pro X blog

December 2nd, 2003, 04:01 PM	#9
Ken Hodson Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 1,315	Wow, sure does. Thanks Boyd. Ken __________________ Damnit Jim, I'm a film maker not a sysytems tech.

December 1st, 2003, 03:08 PM	#2
Kenn Christenson Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Medford Oregon Posts: 152	Try: http://www.centuryoptics.com/products/dv/camera/6.htm Century Precision Optics also has a higher end anamorphic 16:9, but it's much more expensive.

December 1st, 2003, 09:13 PM	#5
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	The math is actually very simple: an anamorphic adaptor stretches an image with a 1.33 aspect ratio to 1.78. Divide that out and 1.78/1.33=1.338, therefore the anamorphic adaptor stretches your image horizontally by 33.8% Now if you start out with a camera that is native 16:9 the calculation would be 1.78 x 1.338 = 2.38, which is pretty close to 2.35:1 (these numbers are all rounded off a bit). This has been discussed here WRT shooting 2.35:1 on regular DV. Do a search on Martin Munthe; he has done some very nice work using this technique with a PAL PD-150. But one of the real issues is what to do with any footage that you shoot this way. Seems that in the end you will need to letterbox it in a 16:9 frame anyhow. This being the case, it may be easier and just about as good to shoot 16:9 and letterbox in post. Saves the trouble of working with "squashed" images when you shoot and edit. But the whole topic also interests me, and I'd love to hear if anyone is shooting 2.35:1 and also how they are presenting the finished footage. I think one possible solution would be to put an anamorphic lens on your 16:9 video projector. I vaguely recall reading about such things on a home theatre website.

December 2nd, 2003, 01:28 PM	#6
Bill Piedra Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Manchester CT USA Posts: 109	I have one question about this. If you put the anamorphic lens on the camera, and 'squished' the 16:9 image I can understand how you would build a very wide wide screen image. But then how would you display it? A true anamorphic lens is going to still use the whole frame. Normally when playing back anamorphic DVDs on a projector, you simply use an anamorphic 'squeeze' to compress the normal 4:3 aspect ratio image into a 16:9 aspect ratio image. You get the same number of lines of resoution, but in a smaller vertical space, making the picture look sharper. How you would do that with a 2.35:1 aspect ratio image?

December 2nd, 2003, 02:41 PM	#8
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	Here's a great website that will tell you just about everything you could possibly want to know about the various forms of widescreen movies...

December 2nd, 2003, 09:00 PM	#10
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	<<<-- Originally posted by Heath McKnight : I don't see too much of a problem with that going to DVD, etc., with more black bars on one's TV. But here's another question: I used to be a projectionist, and we dealt with "flat" and "scope." Flat wasn't quite as wide, and scope was much wider. The movies in flat looked normal when inspecting the 35mm print, but the movies in scope looked stretched out vertically, much like 16x9 before it's "flattened," when inspecting the 35 mm print. Anyone want to field what the aspect ratios are on both? heath -->>> Flat is 1.85:1. It's a 1.37:1 frame with black bars on the top and bottom. "Scope" is approximately 2.39:1. It's a 1.2:1 section of the film print, squeezed horizontally with a 2:1 anamorphic lens.