Thread: The Art of Independence - a new digital filmmaking blog

Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 101
  1. #11  
    2.35 to 1 was established by an anamorphic system called CinemaScope. Anamorphics are ways of optically ‘squeezing’ one shaped image onto another, a process later reversed during projection.
    Anamorphic widescreen hasn't been 2.35:1 since the 1970s. Modern widescreen, whether anamorphic or 35mm 3-perf, is 2.39:1, sometimes called 2.40.

    Anamorphic was invented to create a wide "spectacle" image using a single camera and projector, instead of the multiple cameras and projectors used by systems like Cinerama. The wide image was used to create a spectacle that would draw audiences away from their TVs and back into the cinemas. (Like IMAX and 3D today.)

    Many modern digital films shoot Super35, and crop a 2.39:1 widescreen frame out of the middle, but use the full-frame for non-widescreen home video.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #12  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,139
    Awesome contribution. Thanks. Since most of us are not shooting anamorphic, do you crop to 2.35:1 or do you use 2.39:1? I like 16x9 alot, it's so close to 1.85:1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by Brad Ferrell View Post
    Awesome contribution. Thanks. Since most of us are not shooting anamorphic, do you crop to 2.35:1 or do you use 2.39:1? I like 16x9 alot, it's so close to 1.85:1.
    Glad to help.

    If you want your digital video to look like a widescreen movie, crop to 2.39:1. Even back in the day when they shot 2.35:1, the cinema would often matte the projection to 2.39. That's the size we're used to seeing.

    On DVDs, they often crop to 2.39, 2.40 or 2.41 -- so you have some breathing room.


    BTW, 16x9 = 1.78:1 which is sometimes called "European widescreen" because it was used for decades in Euopean cinemas for spherical (non-anamorphic) widescreen.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #14 Why I'm buying the Blackmagic Cinema Camera? 
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,139
    Why am I buying the Blackmagic Design Cinema Camera? There are several reasons. Please, let me explain.

    1. In-Camera RAW recording - this is important to me on many fronts. In-Camera to me means that I don't have to worry about the added expense of an outboard recorder, the bulk of the recorder, the operation of the recorder, the powering of the recorder, another cable sticking out to work around. In-camera means portability to me. I like to do hand-held work as much as I love the beauty of a nice pan on a tripod. RAW? I can't say enough about this opportunity. I got a taste of it shooting RAW stills with my Canon 7D. I worked with the raw images alongside the compressed JPEGs and mp4's it produced. What a difference in the changes to the image I was able to make. I talked to one Red owner and when the Scarlett came out close friends about their workflow for raw video. I clamoured for more than my 7D could produce, even with a flat picture style. Then came the announcement. RAW - $3000.00. I couldn't pass it up and pre-ordered. Another thing is that I'm expecting is a much better key from my footage. I'm a visual effects artist too and I'd like to work with what I consider top-quality elements. I believe RAW will allow me to do this. Sure ProRes or DNxHD are 4:2:2 and considered industry standards, but I want more. While the workflow may be more expensive, you need a powerful system to handle both the data rates of the CinemaDNG files but also to run Resolve to it's best. This is ok for me. I've been color correcting and on-lining in Adobe for years now and I'm looking for something that is realtime.

    2. 2.5K resolution - 2K and 1080P have become industry delivery standards. 2.5K gives you cropping room for a 2K master. It also allows for a level of oversampling when reduced to 2K or 1080P. This makes for nice smooth edges and adds a level of detail to the image. While in visual effects and 3D CGI training, we were encouraged to render our effects at a higher resolution than delivery, to allow for this oversampling to take place. It took more time to render the files, but it works and helped me separate my work from others.

    3. Resolve - Resolve has come a long way. When I was introduced to it, it was a tape-based 4:2:2 solution. Now it is a realtime 32bpc RGB solution with built-in noise reduction. Learning the workflow has been easy, there are plenty of basic tutorials on YouTube. I'm sure I'll have to pay for more advanced instruction in the future but I'm alright for now learning from the web.

    4. $2995.00 - Twice the price of my Canon 7D but worth every penny to this starving artist. It's still less than a 5D MkIII and gets me out of 4:2:0 hell.

    That's it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #15  
    Senior Member nickjbedford's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    2,056
    Quote Originally Posted by Brad Ferrell View Post
    1. In-Camera RAW recording - this is important to me on many fronts.
    I love editing raw photos, and when I first heard about the RED One, I was amazed that raw video capture even existed. I'm going to shoot ProRes for the most part but pull out raw in demanding scenes (such as sunsets). Can't wait to give it a run for its money, at any rate

    2. 2.5K resolution - 2K and 1080P have become industry delivery standards.
    While I don't doubt you can get great results from a DSLR, the line-skipping, moiré-prone, 1080p and 720p limited images aren't quite what I'd like to be working with. Having at least some form of anti-aliasing, as well as no line-skipping (which drastically reduces chances of moiré) will be a great relief when grading and also generally in shooting as you know what you're getting. And 13 stops is awesome.

    3. Resolve - Resolve has come a long way. When I was introduced to it, it was a tape-based 4:2:2 solution. Now it is a realtime 32bpc RGB solution with built-in noise reduction. Learning the workflow has been easy, there are plenty of basic tutorials on YouTube. I'm sure I'll have to pay for more advanced instruction in the future but I'm alright for now learning from the web.
    I'm not expert in Resolve (Lite), but I love it! The tracking is amazing. Really looking forward to cutting in Final Cut Pro X and sending it to Resolve to grade.

    4. $2995.00
    Something I can actually afford! About $1.5K more and I've got a full shooting set up with a good tripod. Score!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by popcornflix View Post

    they often crop to 2.39, 2.40 or 2.41 -- so you have some breathing room.

    If working in full HD I'll use a comp size of 1920x800. That's exactly 2.4:1. It's nice, even, and easy to remember.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #17  
    Senior Member nickjbedford's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    2,056
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew View Post
    If working in full HD I'll use a comp size of 1920x800. That's exactly 2.4:1. It's nice, even, and easy to remember.
    What's the word on 2:1? Is it used often?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #18  
    Quote Originally Posted by nickjbedford View Post
    What's the word on 2:1? Is it used often?
    I don't think so, but I'm sure someone with a better idea than me will let you know.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #19  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,139
    Nick, you reminded me about the 13 stops of dynamic range. That's the real deal.

    I'm warming up to the idea of you guys shooting ProRes. I CAN see the benefits, but again, not a feature I'm looking very hard into. I will shoot ProRes and DNxHD to compare them to RAW and each other while I'm putting together the new computer system in August. Of course I'll share my research here online.

    My optics will be limited to the Tokina 11-16 and the Tamron 17-50 (non VC) at first but will try to get some ZF.2s or even CP.2s in front of the camera for some real tests. I'm sure more people will be interested in the Tokina and Tamron results as they are more affordable, but I would like to show people the difference.

    Oh, and thanks for reading the blog.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #20  
    Quote Originally Posted by nickjbedford View Post
    What's the word on 2:1? Is it used often?
    The most common aspect ratios in cinema are 1.33:1, 1.78:1, 1.85:1 and 2.39:1

    Apparently, the RED camera offers a 2:1 crop.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Tags for this Thread

View Tag Cloud

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •