dvx100a anamorphic lens question at DVinfo.net

Andrew Cleary · July 5th, 2004, 11:00 PM

from what i read, the panasonic anamorphic lens is 16:9. i thought that anamorphic was 2.35:1 or something around those lines. If you use the digital squeeze as well as the anamorphic lens, will this create the 2.35:1 aspect rasio?

Boyd Ostroff · July 6th, 2004, 06:22 AM

Yes, the "double anamorphic" approach will give you something very close to 2.35:1. One problem with this... what will you do with the results? Do you plan to up-rez to HD? Otherwise you're going to have to letterbox it anyway, so you're probably just as well off shooting 16:9 and cropping. This has been discussed before, do a search for the user Martin Munthe; he uses this technique and has described it in detail.

The word "anamorphic" means "changed form" (or so I've read.... it's all Greek to me ;-). It does not imply any specific aspect ratio, it only means that you've used some technique to squash/stretch the image. But generally when you're discussing video people will assume you're talking about 16:9, which could also be expressed as 1.78:1.

There are many different flavors of widescreen cinema however. For in depth info on this topic my favorite website is The American Widescreen Museum.

Tommy Haupfear · July 8th, 2004, 12:07 AM

I am confused. Is 2.35:1 chosen only for artistic purposes? I'm much happier with a 1.78:1 or 1.85:1 movie on my widescreen TV.

Boyd, thanks for the link. Ben-Hur with its 2.76:1 aspect ratio is amazing to look at.

Andrew Cleary · July 8th, 2004, 11:18 AM

yes, just for the look. thank you for your answers

July 5th, 2004, 11:00 PM	#1
Andrew Cleary Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: ohio Posts: 31	dvx100a anamorphic lens question from what i read, the panasonic anamorphic lens is 16:9. i thought that anamorphic was 2.35:1 or something around those lines. If you use the digital squeeze as well as the anamorphic lens, will this create the 2.35:1 aspect rasio?

July 6th, 2004, 06:22 AM	#2
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,800	Yes, the "double anamorphic" approach will give you something very close to 2.35:1. One problem with this... what will you do with the results? Do you plan to up-rez to HD? Otherwise you're going to have to letterbox it anyway, so you're probably just as well off shooting 16:9 and cropping. This has been discussed before, do a search for the user Martin Munthe; he uses this technique and has described it in detail. The word "anamorphic" means "changed form" (or so I've read.... it's all Greek to me ;-). It does not imply any specific aspect ratio, it only means that you've used some technique to squash/stretch the image. But generally when you're discussing video people will assume you're talking about 16:9, which could also be expressed as 1.78:1. There are many different flavors of widescreen cinema however. For in depth info on this topic my favorite website is The American Widescreen Museum.

July 8th, 2004, 12:07 AM	#3
Tommy Haupfear Wrangler Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Greenville, SC Posts: 1,415	I am confused. Is 2.35:1 chosen only for artistic purposes? I'm much happier with a 1.78:1 or 1.85:1 movie on my widescreen TV. Boyd, thanks for the link. Ben-Hur with its 2.76:1 aspect ratio is amazing to look at.

July 8th, 2004, 11:18 AM	#4
Andrew Cleary Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: ohio Posts: 31	yes, just for the look. thank you for your answers