What does 4:3 footage cropped like 2:35 widescreen look like on screen. at DVinfo.net

James A. Davis · March 27th, 2006, 10:33 AM

We've seen a cropped 1:85 (standard widscreen i.e. November) on the screen but what does a 2:35 (extremely wide) look like on the bigscreen or widescreen TV. Has it been done before? If so does it look pixelated.

NOTE: Not concerning HD cams this is a SDef question?

Bennis Hahn · March 27th, 2006, 04:07 PM

On my 57" HDTV, it looks pretty good, (DVX100A 24pA).

A film I directed will be shown this friday, and we will get to see what it looks like this thrusday, through a digital projector (no specs as of yet) from a laptop onto a large screen. I'll tell you what that looks like.

Giroud Francois · March 27th, 2006, 04:25 PM

depends how you shoot it.
if you only get a regular DV camera, the best is to use a 16/9 anamorphic adapter and add the bar for 2.35.
i can not believe that a video running on less than 400 lines can give good result on even a medium sized screen.
cropped 16/9 on big screen already looks fuzzy.

David Jimerson · March 27th, 2006, 04:57 PM

The image quality is the same as 4:3 cropped to 1.85:1. The only difference between the two is that there's more black on the top and bottom.

James A. Davis · March 29th, 2006, 04:51 PM

No one here has seen it transferred to film? How did November look to you in theaters? That was cropped

David Jimerson · March 29th, 2006, 05:02 PM

I haven't seen it transferred to film.

But there isn't any difference in image quality between 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 when they're cropped from 4:3. Something cropped to 2.35:1 doesn't get blown up any more than something cropped to 1.85:1.

A 2.35:1 image just takes up a smaller portion of the screen.

Emre Safak · March 29th, 2006, 08:30 PM

I have seen 4:3 cropped to 16:9 and it looks **** projected, so I imagine 16:9 cropped to 2.35:1 would look similar. As suggested, an anamorphic adapter might help but I can not comment on that.

James A. Davis · March 29th, 2006, 08:42 PM

I saw Inside Man this weekend and it was 2:35. The screen before the feature was 1:85 but the previews/film started it opened wider. When I saw War Of The Worlds in D.C. the curtains stayed the same (it was 1:85).

David Jimerson · March 30th, 2006, 06:26 AM

The theater that opened wider probably had an anamorphic projector. Good for them . . . that's increasingly rare.

On a 16:9 TV, all widescreen images are 16:9; anything with a wider aspect ratio just has black bars on the top and bottom of the image -- a tiny bit for 1.85:1, more for 2.35:1.

James A. Davis · March 30th, 2006, 09:11 AM

When a movie is 2:35 it has blackbars on the screen (IM TALKING ABOUT THE THEATER NOT TV)?

David Jimerson · March 30th, 2006, 12:21 PM

Not on the film itself, but there's something similar going on.

35mm film is 4:3. When a 1.85:1 movie is projected, the projecter has a "gate" which blocks the top and bottom portions of the picture, cropping the image to 1.85:1. This gate can usually be set to multiple aspect ratios, including 2.35:1. So, if the projected image is matted using the gate, you could say it has the black bars on the top and bottom, but it's not on the film itself.

If a film is shot with a 2:1 anamorphic lens, then film is still 4:3, but a wider picture is squeezed onto the film, and looks vertically stretched, just like "squeeze modes" and anamorphic adapters will produce in video cameras. When the film is projected, it's projected anamorphically, and the math works out to an aspect ratio of about 2.35:1, no matting required.

SD video cropped to 2.35:1 would probably not be projected anamorphically. That being the case, its quality would be the same as the 1.85:1 video.

Giroud Francois · March 30th, 2006, 12:57 PM

the quality you get from cropped video is the same than no cropped video except.... that once cropped, you usually project a bigger picture of the cropped version (to fill the screen).
So imagine if it is bad on regular 4/3 SD it will be anyway worse with a cropped picture (less pixel, bigger screen).
Fact is that DV projected bigger than 12 or 15 feet will look bad.

James A. Davis · March 30th, 2006, 02:50 PM

My question has been answered.

March 27th, 2006, 10:33 AM	#1
James A. Davis Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Philadelphia, PA Posts: 90	What does 4:3 footage cropped like 2:35 widescreen look like on screen. We've seen a cropped 1:85 (standard widscreen i.e. November) on the screen but what does a 2:35 (extremely wide) look like on the bigscreen or widescreen TV. Has it been done before? If so does it look pixelated. NOTE: Not concerning HD cams this is a SDef question?

March 27th, 2006, 04:57 PM	#4
David Jimerson Jubal 28 Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Wilmington, NC Posts: 872	The image quality is the same as 4:3 cropped to 1.85:1. The only difference between the two is that there's more black on the top and bottom. __________________ www.wrightsvillebeachstudios.com

March 29th, 2006, 04:51 PM	#5
James A. Davis Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Philadelphia, PA Posts: 90	But no one has seen it on screen? No one here has seen it transferred to film? How did November look to you in theaters? That was cropped

March 29th, 2006, 05:02 PM	#6
David Jimerson Jubal 28 Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Wilmington, NC Posts: 872	I haven't seen it transferred to film. But there isn't any difference in image quality between 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 when they're cropped from 4:3. Something cropped to 2.35:1 doesn't get blown up any more than something cropped to 1.85:1. A 2.35:1 image just takes up a smaller portion of the screen. __________________ www.wrightsvillebeachstudios.com

March 29th, 2006, 08:42 PM	#8
James A. Davis Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Philadelphia, PA Posts: 90	Hows that so. When you see a 2:35 in the theater, the curtains extend wider. I saw Inside Man this weekend and it was 2:35. The screen before the feature was 1:85 but the previews/film started it opened wider. When I saw War Of The Worlds in D.C. the curtains stayed the same (it was 1:85).

March 27th, 2006, 04:07 PM	#2
Bennis Hahn Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Richmond, VA Posts: 221	On my 57" HDTV, it looks pretty good, (DVX100A 24pA). A film I directed will be shown this friday, and we will get to see what it looks like this thrusday, through a digital projector (no specs as of yet) from a laptop onto a large screen. I'll tell you what that looks like.

March 27th, 2006, 04:25 PM	#3
Giroud Francois Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: switzerland Posts: 2,133	depends how you shoot it. if you only get a regular DV camera, the best is to use a 16/9 anamorphic adapter and add the bar for 2.35. i can not believe that a video running on less than 400 lines can give good result on even a medium sized screen. cropped 16/9 on big screen already looks fuzzy.

March 29th, 2006, 08:30 PM	#7
Emre Safak Trustee Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Brookline, MA Posts: 1,447	I have seen 4:3 cropped to 16:9 and it looks **** projected, so I imagine 16:9 cropped to 2.35:1 would look similar. As suggested, an anamorphic adapter might help but I can not comment on that.

March 30th, 2006, 06:26 AM	#9
David Jimerson Jubal 28 Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Wilmington, NC Posts: 872	The theater that opened wider probably had an anamorphic projector. Good for them . . . that's increasingly rare. On a 16:9 TV, all widescreen images are 16:9; anything with a wider aspect ratio just has black bars on the top and bottom of the image -- a tiny bit for 1.85:1, more for 2.35:1. __________________ www.wrightsvillebeachstudios.com

March 30th, 2006, 09:11 AM	#10
James A. Davis Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Philadelphia, PA Posts: 90	So you all are saying that there are black bars on the movie screen. When a movie is 2:35 it has blackbars on the screen (IM TALKING ABOUT THE THEATER NOT TV)?

March 30th, 2006, 12:21 PM	#11
David Jimerson Jubal 28 Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Wilmington, NC Posts: 872	Not on the film itself, but there's something similar going on. 35mm film is 4:3. When a 1.85:1 movie is projected, the projecter has a "gate" which blocks the top and bottom portions of the picture, cropping the image to 1.85:1. This gate can usually be set to multiple aspect ratios, including 2.35:1. So, if the projected image is matted using the gate, you could say it has the black bars on the top and bottom, but it's not on the film itself. If a film is shot with a 2:1 anamorphic lens, then film is still 4:3, but a wider picture is squeezed onto the film, and looks vertically stretched, just like "squeeze modes" and anamorphic adapters will produce in video cameras. When the film is projected, it's projected anamorphically, and the math works out to an aspect ratio of about 2.35:1, no matting required. SD video cropped to 2.35:1 would probably not be projected anamorphically. That being the case, its quality would be the same as the 1.85:1 video. __________________ www.wrightsvillebeachstudios.com Last edited by David Jimerson; March 30th, 2006 at 01:45 PM.

March 30th, 2006, 12:57 PM	#12
Giroud Francois Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: switzerland Posts: 2,133	the quality you get from cropped video is the same than no cropped video except.... that once cropped, you usually project a bigger picture of the cropped version (to fill the screen). So imagine if it is bad on regular 4/3 SD it will be anyway worse with a cropped picture (less pixel, bigger screen). Fact is that DV projected bigger than 12 or 15 feet will look bad.

March 30th, 2006, 02:50 PM	#13
James A. Davis Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Philadelphia, PA Posts: 90	Thanx Guys My question has been answered.