IAC DISCUSSION FORUMS

A recent concern about our next video camera has lead to this wee experiment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Obq8QU7AKgQ

The certain thing with our next video camera purchase is that it will be a 16:9 ratio camera. As you may know Film thurso don't use the format opting instead for 2.35:1 CinemaScope. The puzzler was that we would need to enable 16:9 to allow CinemaScope without reverting to a 4:3 plate which would not use the full resolution available.
Our current camera does have a 16:9 function viewable in a bordered 4:3 viewfinder . To our joy we found it to be genuinely wider and anamorphically formattedand with a 1.5x anamorphic, dilema 1 solved.
But then came an idea. The maths of the thing worked out that a 2x anamorphic lens on a 16:9 plate would yield a 3:1 field so we filmed the above event as an experiment. We've yet to check out the projection side but it has been worked out. The film is presented on youtube about 2.66:1 so not quite the full stretch but I think you'll get the idea.

Slightly to my surprise - because I thought from my cinema and 35mm experience I was familiar with how different a widescreen show can look - this is impressive even on the YouTube version which is not the full 3:1.

Given that there have been all sorts of widescreen formats over the years in cinemas it does seem a little perverse to want to make movies in 3:1 or 2.35:1 when the video world has settled on 16:9 ... but, hey, it's a hobby we can do what we want.

And that image shape is very potent.

Dave

The hobby of movie making is about making movies. I have reason to believe the movie industry is into making movies in 2.35:1 for the 'A' films whilst Ben Hur went that little bit further (like the original which was partly filmed in color) with the slightly anamorphically filmed print on 70mm which also had a 3:1 ratio.

You guys can keep 16:9, we're making for cinema screens not home video!

FILM THURSO wrote:You guys can keep 16:9, we're making for cinema screens not home video!

Since I became a movie-maker, there is little I do primarily designed for home video, though I've put some stuff on youtube.
I want my movies to be seen projected onto big screens, and be seen by people all over the UK and beyond.
I don't want much!

Hey Billy, you've just become a member of Film Thurso, welcome aboard!

I've stopped including masked-down portions in my 16:9 films now. I used to like having 2:1 sections in my movies for dramatic effect, but I've seen too many domestic TVs try and 'correct' the 'problem' to continue with it.

A lot of TVs in their 'smart' mode will always try and remove the black bars that arrive with the video signal. So they'll stretch 4:3 stuff sideways and 2:1 stuff vertically.

Beware.

tom.

At Film-Thurso we don't mask down the frame. We are using anamorphic lenses and the full 4:3 or 16:9 frame. For youtube we flatten the frame to fit. For dvd on 16:9 tv's we flatten the frame less so it is still partly anamorphic and the tv will simply take the picture to the correct ratio with any kind of subcoding. For projection it's the ful anamorphic format put through horizontal stretch, no flattening or boarders- it's the reel deal!