|
Author
|
Topic: Shooting in widescreen (2.35:1)
|
Jm
|
posted 03-23-2000 06:56 PM
I'm going to start shooting a short for a project and I wanted to shoot it in widescreen, somewhere around 2.35/2.30:1 I will be using a sony handicam and I remember seeing a post of how to do this.The way I'm trying to do it now is to put tape over the viewfinder (not the lens) and will shoot it that way, then overlay two black bars in premier over what I shot that will hide extra picture information. Is there an easier or better way to do this? Also, if anyone has done this can they send me a small picture file of the black bars they used in premier for their letterboxing (preferably the 2.30:1) I'm not sure how to measure it onto a picture file. Thanks,
Jm |
Bowie
|
posted 03-23-2000 09:10 PM
Between 21% and 24% in the clip filter should do the trick. |
alucard
|
posted 03-24-2000 10:49 AM
I shot a music video & wanted to give it the movie look.I marked up a piece of acitate(ohp film)& placed it on the viewfinder as you suggest. While editing I ran all the footage through a gen lok with the black overlay. It worked & looked fine. Have fun ------------------
I Thank You |
Elurew
|
posted 03-24-2000 11:00 AM
yup...that stuff always makes it feel a little nicer. however, for purposes of not having those black bars when i view the view small on the monitor, i avoid the overlaying black bars. use the black bars just for reference on your previews and stuff. But when you export your completed file, go to the settings--> special, and then crop your frame size. this makes it nicer to look at on the computer, and i believe it saves some time and disk space (instead of encoding frame after frame for two black spaces)
you can do this in both premiere and ulead, however, if there is some error about framesize, your compression codec probably can't work in those resolutions. The only one i have had the problem with for that is with the matrox codecs. Anyhoo, good luck |
DarelRex
|
posted 03-24-2000 11:55 AM
On my Sony TR7000 (Digital8) there is a 16:9 mode where it actually films in anamorphic widescreen. (It doesn't crop part of the picture away--you actually see more on the left and right sides.) Then you have to adjust the aspect in the computer so it looks normal (and widescreen). However, it's 16:9 (1.78-to-1) so a little cropping in the computer will be necessary to make it 2.35-to-1.[This message has been edited by DarelRex (edited 03-24-2000).] |
funkymunkey
|
posted 03-24-2000 03:26 PM
A note to Elurew post for all you DC10+ users:Another codec that will not work is the Studio DC10 MJPEG codec. This is the only codec that is compatable with the DC10+. It will encode a file to that size that you can watch on your computer, but if you try to export it, you'll only get the NTSC color bars. You have to export at a 4:3 aspect ration when using the NTSC DC10+.  |
gore master
|
posted 03-24-2000 03:51 PM
ummmm.. putting black bars at the top and bottom of the screen doesn't make something wide screen, it just cuts off the top and bottom of the picture. Widescreen is the nickname(used on video releases) for the theatrical aspect ratio. You would have to have a 35mm camera to have the real widescreen you are talking about. ON video releases when released in pan & scan, the sides of the picture are cut off to fit the tv screen, so instead the picture pans in or scans at certain scenes. Widescreen releases
are what's seen in the theatre. Instead of zooming in on the picture they want to keep it is the wider picture that is seen in the theatres. Ever notice how much wider the movie screen is than your tv? |
Jm
|
posted 03-24-2000 10:28 PM
gore: yes, I agree, but since I'm directing it would be the aspect ratio I choose to shoot in for the theatrical aspect ratio. If I cut off the top and bottom portion to 'imitate' the widescreen that means the parts I cut off were never ment to be seen so it really would be widescreen even though it's just cropping picture information.Also, many times I've seen films shot on film that has refrence boxes that show multiple aspect ratios to choose from. The cinematographer frames it according to the one they are using, so even at the movies with the true anamorphic lenses there is still picture information (intentionaly) lost. Jm ------------------
--Jm
...and that's all I got to say about that... |
Elurew
|
posted 03-24-2000 10:38 PM
yup...i believe it's the soft matting technique. anyhoo...technically speaking, instead of paying for an anamorphic lens, you could take 5 steps back (or whatever and cut the rest off in post)...personally, i find widescreen inefficient. To maximize picture (as calculus would dictate) you would use a square! The only reason i ever use soft matting is cause widescreen's already accepted as a more theatrical format.Elurew Actually, i'm just kidding about the idea of using a square. sure, it increases the picture... but i personally can't picture that. but the logic still holds. |
Mister Twisted
|
posted 03-24-2000 11:23 PM
If you ever get a chance, go and see Disney's "Snow White" in a movie theatre. The aspect ratio is almost square... |
Gazorra
|
posted 03-25-2000 11:43 AM
well you dont need a 35mm cam to shoot "real" widescreen, you can find anamorphic lenses for 8mm, even cinemascope and such.
but i too am using fake widescreen for my video films now. i dont put black bars on my viewfinder, just lines to mark where they would begin, so i can still see the rest as well. |
