More
138. 2.35:1 Test with Pedal Footage
1 year ago
I posted a question in Pedal's "Geek" forum about 16:9 to 2.35:1 advice, and Karen & Jay chipped in with some how-to's.
I did a quick test yesterday by simply going into my timeline settings, clicking 'anamorphic' for my 1080i50 footage, and then stretched the clips 134% to fill the frame.
Should I be scaling down my frame size in Final Cut? Is it not ideal to stretch my footage out to 134% as opposed to make the timeline's frame size closer to 100% width?
I love the way the clips look cropped though - I like having more control of what part of the image I use. I'm leaning toward editing the film in this aspect.
I'd love to hear more people's pro's and con's here :) vimeo.com/pedal/forumtopic:705
PS. The audio is pointless, I forgot to take it out, it's all a bunch of mumbling :P
I did a quick test yesterday by simply going into my timeline settings, clicking 'anamorphic' for my 1080i50 footage, and then stretched the clips 134% to fill the frame.
Should I be scaling down my frame size in Final Cut? Is it not ideal to stretch my footage out to 134% as opposed to make the timeline's frame size closer to 100% width?
I love the way the clips look cropped though - I like having more control of what part of the image I use. I'm leaning toward editing the film in this aspect.
I'd love to hear more people's pro's and con's here :) vimeo.com/pedal/forumtopic:705
PS. The audio is pointless, I forgot to take it out, it's all a bunch of mumbling :P
-
Monconic1 year ago -
-
Mark Schoneveld1 year ago -
-
Ben Millett1 year ago
-
playslikescomments
-
Total
514 
5 
22 -
Nov 10th
0 
0 
0 -
Nov 9th 0 0 0
-
Nov 8th 1 0 0
-
Nov 7th 0 0 0
-
Nov 6th 0 0 0
-
Nov 5th 0 0 0
-
Nov 4th 0 0 0
-
Nov 3rd 0 0 0
Previous Week
Please join Vimeo or log in to download the original file. It only takes a few seconds.
-
Vimeo: About / Blog / Developers / Jobs / Community Guidelines / Community Forums / Help Center / Site Map / Merchandise
/ Get Vimeo
-
Yea, before I make a final decision, I need to run through all the interview footage to see how it would frame. Thanks for bringing that up.
Wait, is this Frodo talking to Sam? :P
But anyways..
Its hard to gauge if this works because it is plants...you need to see how it looks on the people.
but i like this aspect ratio.
I'm kinda with Ayz on this - at least more and more the last few days, it's just so pretty when it's this wide ;)
Personally -- I think you should go 2.35 if you can pull it off. It gives the images more of a punch, and will allow you to adjust the compositions slightly....
I don't think i'll ever do anything in 16.9 unless I have to. So I'm biased.
But I think your instinct to experiment in 2.35 says something. There is a subconscious effect to the wider image.
I say go for it.
Ha ha, I didn't know you had it out so bad for 16:9 :)
Thanks for chipping in - you've got me very close to sold ;)
16:9 just feels blah to me is all. Scope is bolder and feels like a choice is being made by the filmmaker.
Last night Amanda and I went through a *ton* of different footage in 2.35:1, we looked at close-ups of people and nature, we looked a wide tracking shots with Larry, we tried interviews, conversations, hand-held randomness with Larry in gift-shops, everything :) and we loved all of it.
It's decided. We are editing in 2.35:1.
I can't wait to see some of the material you come up with.
Thanks to Karen, now I can show you how to do it, it's very easy and just takes some resizing and re-framing of the footage. Luckily I have a ton of wide shots, lots and lots of wides, but I've also been loving the extreme close ups I've been testing too.
I don't want it on TV, and fuck pan & scan, I won't do that...
lmao! you are now officially in my cool book sir. That sounded like you quoted me somewhere.
FUCK PAN AND SCAN!
F(*$ 4:3
Solution..
get a bigger TV....in 16:9....wussy.
haahahahhaa jk
we had severals choices ... Anamorh regular 2x lenses ... we decide 2:35 2 perfs ...
But i have done somes shorts in 2:35 in HD, and in 16mm , 2:35 because the drama need it .... somes things happend ONLY in this format ... you can put in relation 2 setups, 2 actions, foregroud and others elements in composition , i love 2:35 ....
I don t undestand your question ...
If you shoot 2:35 cropping 16/9 it is OK ... but what is your final project use ?
Actually i work on a HD Post they shoot in 2:35 cropping , so they shoot 16/9 full 1920 pixels and MASK UP and DOWN , but now i will Squeeze the 2:35 into the 2X anamorphic format and almost fill the HD Screen i use(1200x2300pix (almost 3K) to pass it to 35mm so result, i will have a negative Anamorphised JUST like we had filming using Scopes lenses .... I pass it to 35mm with regular lens , When projected, you fill the Scope screen in the Theater ...
That,s IT , SO YES , i upscale a little bit , but all is relative ... Bests, Olivier .
I didn't shoot 2.35 :) I shot in 16:9 HDV, I'm cropping the 16:9 to be 2:35 in FCP.
Yea :P I need to look some of this stuff up.