I have a question regarding aspect ratio.

I want to shoot my next film with either a dvx-100 or another comparable camera. I know these camera's don't have a native 16:9 chip, so I'd be cropping to achieve the effect anyway...

What I'm curious about is.. if I want to get a 2:35 aspect ratio, what would be the best way? I know I'd be losing a lot of resolution.. but is there a way to not loose to much?

And keep in mind guys, this isn't about wether or not I should use 2:35, I've already made my decision. It's am aesthetic choice for which i'm willing to sacrifice some res, but I'm trying to see what the best way to do this would be. I understand how impractical it is and all that.

So, what then... Wider angle lenses maybe? any help?

Thanks for any advice in advance

-Ayz

DIMEWORTH FILMS
[ www.dimeworth.com ]

i don't understand the quetion. are you asking how you can fit more visual information into your shots because they are "smaller"?

if the question is what you should change in your composition, you will definitely need to put your actors farther away from the camera to have the same relationship mass wise. and more room so that they can actually stand apart from one another throughout the frame. wide angle lenses can help, but if they stand close to the camera, they will be warped and come out looking huge on the screen.

does that help? or is it still something about resolution? because they're discussing that problem over here:

http://forums.studentfilms.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=2086066451&f=2246029451&m=5256079545&r=5256079545#5256079545

if you shoot in the matted 16x9 mode WHILE using an DVX anamorphic adaptor, you get 2.35 I believe...with not as much loss in res.

Thanks a lot for the reply.

So shoot in 16:9 and get the anamorhpic adapter.. and then you stretch it out or something in post?

am i right?

thanks again,

-Ayz

DIMEWORTH FILMS
[ www.dimeworth.com ]

Actually it's 2.35:1

Final cut pro has a widescreen filter that will crop your image. If you really want the 2.35:1 then I'd reccomend you shoot it in however close you can to the 2.35:1, figure out where it will crop your image, compensate in your framing, and then put the filter on in post. Good luck

Daydreamer Films

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dimeworth.com:
What I'm curious about is.. if I want to get a 2:35 aspect ratio, what would be the best way?

---

Well... The best way to do this (Eg. the way to retain the highest resolution) would be to use the P+S Techniks Mini35 adapter in conjunction with a set or anamorphic film lenses (2x). Unsquished this will produce an image with a 2.67:1 aspect ratio and you would just crop some of the sides off. However, this strategy is expensive,cumbersome and a bit like serving caviar on a cheeze-it

What is your final format? If you're ending on 4:3 standard definition video I'd recommend simply taping guideframes on your monitor/lcd and cropping it in post. If your goal is a 16:9 formatted DVD or something simlar I like the idea of using an anamorphic video adapter (1.33x) and further masking to 2.35:1. I would avoid the strategy of shooting for the most resolution (Using squishing software and/or glass) and later squeezing down to letter box, unless you need the higher res for something like an HD copy or a film print.

Nota "MonoScope" Mono

mask off your lcd screen for 2.35, then when you encode for DVD, clip off 60 pixels off the top and bottom so it's a 16:9 DVD (using TMPGEnc), so it will play most efficiently on a widescreen monitor.

or get the anamorphic adapter and mask off your external 16:9 monitor for 2.35 (as your lcd and viewfinder image will be stretched). then all you would need to do is squish it so it displays properly and add black bars for 2.35. This will get you the most resolution at a reasonable cost, but you might not even notice it unless it's on huge screen. though the adapter actually makes your image wider, that is, you'll see things on the left and right that you wouldn't normally see without the adapter.

--
Clyde
www.partypooperfilms.com

[This message was edited by Party Pooper on January 19, 2004 at 02:03 PM.]

hey, notamono, so those adapters for the video cameras, they're a second lens that sits in front of the built-in lens right? does that mean that they behave and have to be treated as telephoto lenses (like zooms) even if you are at a wide angle?

Sort of. The Mini 35 adapter is designed to maintain the field of view of a 35mm gate. It's not straight lens on lens, so you don't have the telephoto effect you mentioned, nor will your image appear upside-down and backwards. It assumes the focal length of whatever 35mm lens you put on it, relative to a 35mm gate, not the 1/3" CCD. It's primary purpose (The main selling point) is to maintain 35mm DOF charachteristics, but I would assume it would work as postulated above. I don't know if it's ever been tried, though.

Nota "Not affiliated with P+S Techniks, nor ZGC" Mono