2:35:1 vs 1:85:1 at DVinfo.net

Neil Kissoon · August 5th, 2003, 01:43 PM

Hey guys, I've got a tight budget, and I'm think about passing on the anamorphic adapter for now, what do you think if I did it in post to 1:85:1 instead of 2:35:1
Neil

Eirik Tyrihjel · August 6th, 2003, 04:09 PM

I beleive you should keep your frame as close to the 1:1,367 aspect as possible, (especially when not using an adapter) if your shooting for the big screen, go with no more than 1:1.85, the more widescreen you go the less resolution you get. Regardless you should definetly use an anamorphic adapter instead of cropping the image, unless your final product is tv.
1:2.35 is beautiful when shot in 35 mm, but too ambitious even for 16mm. Also going to wide narrows in your frame, so making a close up of anything tall on a short distance becomes a problem.

For whatever project you are doing make a sincere evaluation of the pros vs the cons, in this case, shooting on DV (which is a compressed format) you want to keep as much resolution as humanly possible, cropping sincerely degrades resolution.

Dave Valencic · August 8th, 2003, 09:22 PM

You REALLY need to know what you're doing to shoot 2.35:1...Even 1.85:1 is totally different than shooting full frame. Perfect example are episodes of The West Wing or ER before they switched to 16x9 production. You'll notice in the 16x9 episodes its a MUCH wider view than the old 1.33:1 full frame shoots.

Vistas are great for 2.35:1, but when it comes to closeups and blocking shots, you need some serious experience before you're 2.35:1 production will look professional. The first time I did a 2.35:1 shoot, I kept everything fairly wide, even the closeups which wasn't the greatest option because when it was broadcast, there wasn't much detail in the image compared to the DV masters. My second time around I studied alot of movies that have shot anamorphically (Super35 doesn't count in my mind even though that's kinda how you have to shoot it) Movies like Armageddon are a great example of how to make closeups work in 2.35:1. The "brow-to-chin" closeup looks great when broadcast and even better in the DV masters and subsequent DVD versions for DV work.

Stephen van Vuuren · August 8th, 2003, 09:44 PM

I don't mean to be a movie snob, but...

Any movie by Michael Bay is an example of how not to make a movie... (search for Sean Penn's quote on Michael Bay).

2.35:1 is not about closeups (or vistas). The overuse of close-ups is one of the worst aesthetic trends in recent years. At some point, close-ups just look the impact of being a close-up.

If you really study movies (I would suggest reading a lot of American Cinematographer where they talk about the reasons they chose one aspect-ratio over another), I think you will find that the visual language of movies is a complex, evolving group of many dialects.

I think it takes far more skill to create moving wide shots than close-ups. And cinematography is really about giving the editor the words to build the sentences that tell the story.

So too much of one thing dimineshes the impact. A ECU in 2.35:1 on a 40 ft screen is a powerful thing if used once or twice in a 2 hour movie.

But in (insert Michael Bay indulgefest here), 200 ECUs mean basically nothing.

Eirik Tyrihjel · August 11th, 2003, 06:45 PM

I still feel like emphasising... DV resolution offers a certain number of pixels width times a certain amount of pixels height, the futher you differ from this the less advantage you gain from the format, as long as you use this camera the best image you can produce (in terms of resolution) is 1:1.367, academy format=full frame 35mm, the more widescreen you go, the more you loose. An anamorphic adapter will make you get as much as you can in term sof widescreen, but remember this is DV=compressed digital video, its a loooong way to even standard 16mm in terms of resolution, color, or contrast, and 35mm is a whole different ballgame!

Spend your pixels wisely!

August 5th, 2003, 01:43 PM	#1
Neil Kissoon Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: NY Posts: 56	2:35:1 s 1:85:1 Hey guys, I've got a tight budget, and I'm think about passing on the anamorphic adapter for now, what do you think if I did it in post to 1:85:1 instead of 2:35:1 Neil

August 6th, 2003, 04:09 PM	#2
Eirik Tyrihjel Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Oslo, Norway Posts: 84	I beleive you should keep your frame as close to the 1:1,367 aspect as possible, (especially when not using an adapter) if your shooting for the big screen, go with no more than 1:1.85, the more widescreen you go the less resolution you get. Regardless you should definetly use an anamorphic adapter instead of cropping the image, unless your final product is tv. 1:2.35 is beautiful when shot in 35 mm, but too ambitious even for 16mm. Also going to wide narrows in your frame, so making a close up of anything tall on a short distance becomes a problem. For whatever project you are doing make a sincere evaluation of the pros vs the cons, in this case, shooting on DV (which is a compressed format) you want to keep as much resolution as humanly possible, cropping sincerely degrades resolution. __________________ http://www.groovyentertainment.com RED ONE #476

August 8th, 2003, 09:44 PM	#4
Stephen van Vuuren Space Hipster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Greensboro, NC Posts: 1,508	I don't mean to be a movie snob, but... Any movie by Michael Bay is an example of how not to make a movie... (search for Sean Penn's quote on Michael Bay). 2.35:1 is not about closeups (or vistas). The overuse of close-ups is one of the worst aesthetic trends in recent years. At some point, close-ups just look the impact of being a close-up. If you really study movies (I would suggest reading a lot of American Cinematographer where they talk about the reasons they chose one aspect-ratio over another), I think you will find that the visual language of movies is a complex, evolving group of many dialects. I think it takes far more skill to create moving wide shots than close-ups. And cinematography is really about giving the editor the words to build the sentences that tell the story. So too much of one thing dimineshes the impact. A ECU in 2.35:1 on a 40 ft screen is a powerful thing if used once or twice in a 2 hour movie. But in (insert Michael Bay indulgefest here), 200 ECUs mean basically nothing. __________________ stephen v2 www.insaturnsrings.com

August 11th, 2003, 06:45 PM	#5
Eirik Tyrihjel Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Oslo, Norway Posts: 84	I still feel like emphasising... DV resolution offers a certain number of pixels width times a certain amount of pixels height, the futher you differ from this the less advantage you gain from the format, as long as you use this camera the best image you can produce (in terms of resolution) is 1:1.367, academy format=full frame 35mm, the more widescreen you go, the more you loose. An anamorphic adapter will make you get as much as you can in term sof widescreen, but remember this is DV=compressed digital video, its a loooong way to even standard 16mm in terms of resolution, color, or contrast, and 35mm is a whole different ballgame! Spend your pixels wisely! __________________ http://www.groovyentertainment.com RED ONE #476

August 8th, 2003, 09:22 PM	#3
Dave Valencic Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Cleveland OH Posts: 34	You REALLY need to know what you're doing to shoot 2.35:1...Even 1.85:1 is totally different than shooting full frame. Perfect example are episodes of The West Wing or ER before they switched to 16x9 production. You'll notice in the 16x9 episodes its a MUCH wider view than the old 1.33:1 full frame shoots. Vistas are great for 2.35:1, but when it comes to closeups and blocking shots, you need some serious experience before you're 2.35:1 production will look professional. The first time I did a 2.35:1 shoot, I kept everything fairly wide, even the closeups which wasn't the greatest option because when it was broadcast, there wasn't much detail in the image compared to the DV masters. My second time around I studied alot of movies that have shot anamorphically (Super35 doesn't count in my mind even though that's kinda how you have to shoot it) Movies like Armageddon are a great example of how to make closeups work in 2.35:1. The "brow-to-chin" closeup looks great when broadcast and even better in the DV masters and subsequent DVD versions for DV work.