true 16:9 at DVinfo.net

Matt Lean · March 11th, 2005, 07:29 PM

Hey guys, I have a gl1 with an anamorphic adapter (True 16:9). Would I lose quality if I cropped it for 2.35:1?

Boyd Ostroff · March 11th, 2005, 08:35 PM

You don't "lose quality," but you do lose the pixels which will have black bars on them. Unfortunately this is the only way to do 2.35:1, unless you want to get into upconverting to HD or using a projector with an anamorphic lens.

Aaron Shaw · March 11th, 2005, 11:03 PM

Using a projector with an anamorphic lens won't work. It would stretch your 16:9 image out too wide.

These are your only options:

1) Crop in post. You will loose roughly 25% of your resolution (assuming you shoot 16:9).
2) Shoot with an anamorphic projector lens instead of a 16:9 lens. This will create a 2.66 image - noticably wider than 2.35 but an interesting option.
3) Make your own anamorphic lens

Matt Lean · March 12th, 2005, 12:42 AM

I will lose 25% of resolution??? By my anamorphic adapter will give me true 16:9. Using a 2:35:1 will make the resolution 25% worse??

Mathieu Ghekiere · March 12th, 2005, 08:22 AM

Normal 16/9 is (I think) 1.85 aspect ratio.
You want 2.35 aspect ratio, that's I think almost the double or something. So If you would want it at full resolution, you would have to have OR a 2.35 adaptor (I don't know if that exists for DV cams) or crop it in post, so you have 2 times 1.85 = 2.35.
But yes then you'll loose some resolution, but... resolution isn't that important unless you plan to blow it up.

Good luck.

Rob Lohman · March 12th, 2005, 08:25 AM

Actually, 16/9 is 1.78 (divide 16.... by 9!). But it is pretty close to 1.85:1 indeed.

Boyd Ostroff · March 12th, 2005, 10:15 AM

Aaron, you don't understand what I'm suggesting - sorry, I didn't explain. If you set the camera for anamorphic widescreen mode ("electronic 16:9") and you also put the anamorphic lens on it, then you'll end up with roughtly 2.35:1 anamorphic on your tape.

Now when you project this, set the projector for anamorphic 16:9 mode and use an anamorphic lens on it. That will unsqueeze this back to 2.35:1. This is one company that makes a lens you could use http://www.panamorph.com

Aaron Shaw · March 12th, 2005, 10:45 AM

Ah ok! Thanks for clarifying Boyd!

Matt: By cropping a true 16:9 image to 2.35 you loose about 25% of the image resolution (it's covered by black bars).

Mathieu Ghekiere · March 12th, 2005, 10:52 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Rob Lohman : Actually, 16/9 is 1.78 (divide 16.... by 9!). But it is pretty close to 1.85:1 indeed. -->>>

Thanks for clearing that up, I was still doubting between the two :-)

March 11th, 2005, 07:29 PM	#1
Matt Lean Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Federal Way Posts: 32	true 16:9 Hey guys, I have a gl1 with an anamorphic adapter (True 16:9). Would I lose quality if I cropped it for 2.35:1?

March 12th, 2005, 08:25 AM	#6
Rob Lohman RED Code Chef Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Holland Posts: 12,514	Actually, 16/9 is 1.78 (divide 16.... by 9!). But it is pretty close to 1.85:1 indeed. __________________ Rob Lohman, visuar@iname.com DV Info Wrangler & RED Code Chef Join the DV Challenge \| Lady X Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Buy from the best: DVinfo.net sponsors

March 11th, 2005, 08:35 PM	#2
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	You don't "lose quality," but you do lose the pixels which will have black bars on them. Unfortunately this is the only way to do 2.35:1, unless you want to get into upconverting to HD or using a projector with an anamorphic lens.

March 11th, 2005, 11:03 PM	#3
Aaron Shaw Major Player Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 587	Using a projector with an anamorphic lens won't work. It would stretch your 16:9 image out too wide. These are your only options: 1) Crop in post. You will loose roughly 25% of your resolution (assuming you shoot 16:9). 2) Shoot with an anamorphic projector lens instead of a 16:9 lens. This will create a 2.66 image - noticably wider than 2.35 but an interesting option. 3) Make your own anamorphic lens

March 12th, 2005, 12:42 AM	#4
Matt Lean Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Federal Way Posts: 32	I will lose 25% of resolution??? By my anamorphic adapter will give me true 16:9. Using a 2:35:1 will make the resolution 25% worse??

March 12th, 2005, 08:22 AM	#5
Mathieu Ghekiere Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Belgium Posts: 2,195	Normal 16/9 is (I think) 1.85 aspect ratio. You want 2.35 aspect ratio, that's I think almost the double or something. So If you would want it at full resolution, you would have to have OR a 2.35 adaptor (I don't know if that exists for DV cams) or crop it in post, so you have 2 times 1.85 = 2.35. But yes then you'll loose some resolution, but... resolution isn't that important unless you plan to blow it up. Good luck.

March 12th, 2005, 10:15 AM	#7
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	Aaron, you don't understand what I'm suggesting - sorry, I didn't explain. If you set the camera for anamorphic widescreen mode ("electronic 16:9") and you also put the anamorphic lens on it, then you'll end up with roughtly 2.35:1 anamorphic on your tape. Now when you project this, set the projector for anamorphic 16:9 mode and use an anamorphic lens on it. That will unsqueeze this back to 2.35:1. This is one company that makes a lens you could use http://www.panamorph.com

March 12th, 2005, 10:45 AM	#8
Aaron Shaw Major Player Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 587	Ah ok! Thanks for clarifying Boyd! Matt: By cropping a true 16:9 image to 2.35 you loose about 25% of the image resolution (it's covered by black bars).

March 12th, 2005, 10:52 AM	#9
Mathieu Ghekiere Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Belgium Posts: 2,195	<<<-- Originally posted by Rob Lohman : Actually, 16/9 is 1.78 (divide 16.... by 9!). But it is pretty close to 1.85:1 indeed. -->>> Thanks for clearing that up, I was still doubting between the two :-)